Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
Am Sonntag, 26. Mai 2013, 18:15:46 schrieb Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina: > > Perhaps this was covered already, but how exactly did this one file, > added by your co-maintainer, hurt you? Did it cause additional bugs? > Did it break a working ebuild? Did it kill your cat? > +1 -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > Perhaps this was covered already, but how exactly did this one file, > added by your co-maintainer, hurt you? Did it cause additional bugs? > Did it break a working ebuild? Did it kill your cat? > > It would seem to me that the co-maintainer (a person who cares that some > users are interested in systemd enough to add one file to the package) > made the package support a slightly wider range of systems (gentoo is > about choice) and this affects you in exactly no way. > > What am I missing here? Are you just trying to force your will on > others or do you have an actual issue caused by this commit? It is not > for us developers to force one way on the users, gentoo is supposed to > be about choice, your co-maintainer chose to support systemd, an action > which as far as I can see didn't harm you, and helped some users. This > has been a very long thread for something I don't get at all. Please, > seriously, what am I missing here? Thanks for asking this. After reading the 34 emails in this thread, I still have this question as well.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/26/2013 11:21 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 26 May 2013 18:04, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800 >>> Ben de Groot wrote: Where is this policy documented? >>> >>> Nowhere, I think. I've seen it coming in the late thread, looked common >>> sense enough to me. >>> >>> If it is to be documented, I think we should document it in a more >>> general fashion. To cover all stuff like completions, logrotate and so >>> on. >>> >> >> As others have already pointed out, we are an organization, not a CPU. >> We can't make EVERYTHING a rule, and devs should act in a cooperative >> manner so that this remains the case. >> >> Sure, this can be made into a policy, and if things get out of hand >> I'm sure it will be. I'm not quite sure I see the need yet, as we >> don't have an example yet of a maintainer not cooperating with the >> systemd team on the installation of init files (in the present example >> Ben isn't actually a maintainer, since he stepped down). > > In packages I maintain, I will not be adding any systemd related files. > All bug reports requesting such additions will be closed as an upstream > matter. > >> If Ben wants to boycott systemd by not maintaining any packages that >> support it, that is his choice. I just suspect that the end result of >> that will be that he'll end up not maintaining much of anything. I'd >> hate to see that happen, as it would be a loss for Gentoo. But, >> frankly, letting any one person dictate the direction of the entire >> distro by essentially threatening to quit would be worse. > > Gentoo is evolving in directions I do not agree with. I am feeling less > and less at home here. More and more often it seems I am the > minority voice of protest. I am not enjoying this role, and increasingly > the thought arises that I should just get out of people's way and > find another place that is closer to my ideas of what a distro > should be. > >> Gentoo is about choice - and the nature of choice is that most of the >> choices it supports are ones that you wouldn't personally make. We do >> a reasonably good job letting everybody have their cake and eat it >> too. However, it really isn't an appropriate distro for absolute >> purists of almost any kind - it reeks of compromise. We package >> proprietary software (we don't redistribute the copyrighted parts), we >> more-or-less run on Windows/OSX, we support that X32 alternate >> architecture that some believe has no useful purpose, and so on. >> >> If you really want to influence the battle of the init >> implementations, then write code, not emails. > > I am not a programmer, I am a simple package maintainer. > >> Maybe that is a wrapper >> that allows OpenRC to support systemd units. Maybe that is more >> functionality for OpenRC. Maybe it is something else. However, >> trying to influence things by just spitting into the wind isn't going >> to do much but get your face dirty. Sure, devs can quit, but that >> isn't just a loss for Gentoo. Frankly if your main goal in life is to >> avoid systemd then you're better off supporting Gentoo which is likely >> to support that option nearly forever far better than any other >> distro. > > If forcing Gentoo package maintainers to add systemd support > to packages they maintain is your idea of the best option to > avoid systemd, then I respectfully disagree. Perhaps this was covered already, but how exactly did this one file, added by your co-maintainer, hurt you? Did it cause additional bugs? Did it break a working ebuild? Did it kill your cat? It would seem to me that the co-maintainer (a person who cares that some users are interested in systemd enough to add one file to the package) made the package support a slightly wider range of systems (gentoo is about choice) and this affects you in exactly no way. What am I missing here? Are you just trying to force your will on others or do you have an actual issue caused by this commit? It is not for us developers to force one way on the users, gentoo is supposed to be about choice, your co-maintainer chose to support systemd, an action which as far as I can see didn't harm you, and helped some users. This has been a very long thread for something I don't get at all. Please, seriously, what am I missing here? - -Zero > > Obviously I have better (and more fun) things to do. > -- > Cheers, > > Ben | yngwin > Gentoo developer > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRojUxAAoJEKXdFCfdEflKNXUQAJufMr9HC/7KPLQEWxZG+LH0 kWzrzSjH9I5OLNhTxuVs3IuMupeHL2BPA2oXZV/hj/NKhJid8FXKlNRB9PCuE6qq ClrnSLuYcdabTNzUmePM+h0CEU5FMkA4Z3GJiT2GtB9fv8CbnjcbuqZAYK4zYupT B8O61/o/uYCYPEgekqi/vU3xOtPA+wzzwXILV4Kf/YNb9A/z/SyIIsJv4JN2qvSm UYCe5Q4h7JqUTz0DzL3lVFLhTFdvCWPErP5Okrn1yk8cCL5878ixDkQBm5dL5
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On 26 May 2013 18:04, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800 >> Ben de Groot wrote: >>> >>> Where is this policy documented? >> >> Nowhere, I think. I've seen it coming in the late thread, looked common >> sense enough to me. >> >> If it is to be documented, I think we should document it in a more >> general fashion. To cover all stuff like completions, logrotate and so >> on. >> > > As others have already pointed out, we are an organization, not a CPU. > We can't make EVERYTHING a rule, and devs should act in a cooperative > manner so that this remains the case. > > Sure, this can be made into a policy, and if things get out of hand > I'm sure it will be. I'm not quite sure I see the need yet, as we > don't have an example yet of a maintainer not cooperating with the > systemd team on the installation of init files (in the present example > Ben isn't actually a maintainer, since he stepped down). In packages I maintain, I will not be adding any systemd related files. All bug reports requesting such additions will be closed as an upstream matter. > If Ben wants to boycott systemd by not maintaining any packages that > support it, that is his choice. I just suspect that the end result of > that will be that he'll end up not maintaining much of anything. I'd > hate to see that happen, as it would be a loss for Gentoo. But, > frankly, letting any one person dictate the direction of the entire > distro by essentially threatening to quit would be worse. Gentoo is evolving in directions I do not agree with. I am feeling less and less at home here. More and more often it seems I am the minority voice of protest. I am not enjoying this role, and increasingly the thought arises that I should just get out of people's way and find another place that is closer to my ideas of what a distro should be. > Gentoo is about choice - and the nature of choice is that most of the > choices it supports are ones that you wouldn't personally make. We do > a reasonably good job letting everybody have their cake and eat it > too. However, it really isn't an appropriate distro for absolute > purists of almost any kind - it reeks of compromise. We package > proprietary software (we don't redistribute the copyrighted parts), we > more-or-less run on Windows/OSX, we support that X32 alternate > architecture that some believe has no useful purpose, and so on. > > If you really want to influence the battle of the init > implementations, then write code, not emails. I am not a programmer, I am a simple package maintainer. > Maybe that is a wrapper > that allows OpenRC to support systemd units. Maybe that is more > functionality for OpenRC. Maybe it is something else. However, > trying to influence things by just spitting into the wind isn't going > to do much but get your face dirty. Sure, devs can quit, but that > isn't just a loss for Gentoo. Frankly if your main goal in life is to > avoid systemd then you're better off supporting Gentoo which is likely > to support that option nearly forever far better than any other > distro. If forcing Gentoo package maintainers to add systemd support to packages they maintain is your idea of the best option to avoid systemd, then I respectfully disagree. Obviously I have better (and more fun) things to do. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800 > Ben de Groot wrote: >> >> Where is this policy documented? > > Nowhere, I think. I've seen it coming in the late thread, looked common > sense enough to me. > > If it is to be documented, I think we should document it in a more > general fashion. To cover all stuff like completions, logrotate and so > on. > As others have already pointed out, we are an organization, not a CPU. We can't make EVERYTHING a rule, and devs should act in a cooperative manner so that this remains the case. Sure, this can be made into a policy, and if things get out of hand I'm sure it will be. I'm not quite sure I see the need yet, as we don't have an example yet of a maintainer not cooperating with the systemd team on the installation of init files (in the present example Ben isn't actually a maintainer, since he stepped down). If Ben wants to boycott systemd by not maintaining any packages that support it, that is his choice. I just suspect that the end result of that will be that he'll end up not maintaining much of anything. I'd hate to see that happen, as it would be a loss for Gentoo. But, frankly, letting any one person dictate the direction of the entire distro by essentially threatening to quit would be worse. Gentoo is about choice - and the nature of choice is that most of the choices it supports are ones that you wouldn't personally make. We do a reasonably good job letting everybody have their cake and eat it too. However, it really isn't an appropriate distro for absolute purists of almost any kind - it reeks of compromise. We package proprietary software (we don't redistribute the copyrighted parts), we more-or-less run on Windows/OSX, we support that X32 alternate architecture that some believe has no useful purpose, and so on. If you really want to influence the battle of the init implementations, then write code, not emails. Maybe that is a wrapper that allows OpenRC to support systemd units. Maybe that is more functionality for OpenRC. Maybe it is something else. However, trying to influence things by just spitting into the wind isn't going to do much but get your face dirty. Sure, devs can quit, but that isn't just a loss for Gentoo. Frankly if your main goal in life is to avoid systemd then you're better off supporting Gentoo which is likely to support that option nearly forever far better than any other distro. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On 5/26/13 9:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote: As in, say, lastrite GNOME and tell users to switch to other distro? Or maybe everything using udev? Sounds much like the way to get the 'one distro' dream some people have. But wasn't the intent opposite? eudev was made on purpose to let people avoid systemd if they wanted, and it is why people involved on it got stalked and had that much fun. lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 08:55 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: [...] > > As far as resisting systemd, why is that so bad? Vertical integration is > > generally a bad idea with the sole exception of when your use case(s) > > line up perfectly with the ivory tower and you need all of the offered > > features. If Gentoo falls to systemd, there will literally be no > > Linux-based distros left to prevent it from taking over, and as a result > > Linux-based systems will become more and more tightly integrated, > > killing the choice that Gentoo truly stands for and homogenizing everything. > > It is bad because ebuilds are not place to put politics into. If you > want to become dev, you should understand this. We are supposed to be > serious people. Serious people don't break user systems or refuse to > support them in the name of manifesting their wishes. > > It is bad because it's not systemd that's losing, it's Gentoo. Except > for the fact that there's just a few people that take Gentoo seriously > these days. > > Upstreams clearly show that they don't care. We can either sit > in the corner and resent, or we can work on improving the situation. > And going on flamewars or manifestations doesn't really improve > anything, you should know that by now. > It's also bad because you are affecting to a lot of people that can/want to use systemd, forcing you to have semi-usable setups because of your personal preferences.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 15:23 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió: [...] > But it isn't even like that. I'm not taking away anyone's freedom to > use systemd. You are doing as you are forcing them to have a semi-usable setup when merging packages. > You can do so if you wish. You can add unit files to your > system by yourself, or use an overlay. There are various ways this > could be realized even within Gentoo. Who are you to force people to use an overlay? Why are you forbidding the inclusion of unit files? Maybe you could also have a separate overlay called "systemd-haters" to maintain that ebuilds done to obstacle systemd usage. > > But you seem to dismiss all of those, and will only be happy by > forcing maintainers to add support to packages they maintain, even if > they believe it is a bad idea. > Nobody is forcing you to maintain that unit file: the unit file will be maintained by the other co-maintainer or systemd team if he cannot do that.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:22:05 +0200 Tiziano Müller wrote: > Am Samstag, den 25.05.2013, 15:53 -0400 schrieb Anthony G. Basile: > > We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not > > providing systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd > > integration and we were getting there with the idea of INSTALL_MASK. I > > don't know that it is a working solution yet. I have to oppose adding > > unit files unless we have a way to opt out for reasons I gave earlier, > > regarding embedded systems where one needs to conserve space > > aggressively. And we may have found a way to do so without cluttering > > ebuilds with USE flags. > > Even though I don't care about a couple of files more on my FS I would > prefer to find a solution with functions provided by PMS, not portage > alone. PMS doesn't cover configuration, and I feel this is mostly a configuration problem. > > Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for opting > > out? I can't support this initiative without such a solution and I > > would be happy to work with the systemd people to reach it, ie I'll test. > > > > Maybe we have to find a more generic solution for this, because there is > bug #235944 [1] which request extra config snippets for rsyslog added to > various packages. Or is this something different? If yes, how? Well, I don't know rsyslog and I have no real idea where those files end up. But if they end up in a common directory, it's exactly the kind of thing we can handle with INSTALL_MASK. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote: > On 26 May 2013 00:48, Michał Górny wrote: > > On the other hand, we > > also agreed that they shouldn't refuse unit files if anyone else > > does the work for them. > > Where is this policy documented? Nowhere, I think. I've seen it coming in the late thread, looked common sense enough to me. If it is to be documented, I think we should document it in a more general fashion. To cover all stuff like completions, logrotate and so on. > >> [...] > >> And you misunderstood: it is systemd that is aggressively opposed to > >> Gentoo. But apparently that doesn't bother some of our developers and > >> Gentoo is becoming more and more welcoming to it. > > > > Protecting freedom through taking away the freedom of using systemd? > > Makes sense really. > > That would be similar to the way the GPL protects software freedom. > Does that not make sense to you either? No. The initial version of that response even used 'FSF' but I've decided not to flame it. > But it isn't even like that. I'm not taking away anyone's freedom to > use systemd. You can do so if you wish. You can add unit files to your > system by yourself, or use an overlay. There are various ways this > could be realized even within Gentoo. You know how fragile that is, don't you? > But you seem to dismiss all of those, and will only be happy by > forcing maintainers to add support to packages they maintain, even if > they believe it is a bad idea. Do I? As far as I'm concerned, I always kindly asked on IRC or opened bugs for it. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:15:18 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote: > On 26 May 2013 01:00, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle > > devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of > > "boycott" attitudes should stop in favor of common sense. > > Common sense would be to recognize that systemd is a bad > implementation of a bad idea, and to boycott it distro-wide. > > But you know what they say about common sense... As in, say, lastrite GNOME and tell users to switch to other distro? Or maybe everything using udev? Sounds much like the way to get the 'one distro' dream some people have. But wasn't the intent opposite? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 09:22 +0200, Tiziano Müller escribió: [...] > > Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for opting > > out? I can't support this initiative without such a solution and I > > would be happy to work with the systemd people to reach it, ie I'll test. > > > > Maybe we have to find a more generic solution for this, because there is > bug #235944 [1] which request extra config snippets for rsyslog added to > various packages. Or is this something different? If yes, how? > > Best, > Tiziano > > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=235944 > Probably a better solution should be found but, until then, we should behave with unit files like we behave for all other similar cases (like logrotate, even init.d files for openrc, bash-completion files...)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 15:15 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió: > On 26 May 2013 01:00, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle > > devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of > > "boycott" attitudes should stop in favor of common sense. > > Common sense would be to recognize that systemd is a bad > implementation of a bad idea, and to boycott it distro-wide. > > But you know what they say about common sense... > > -- > Cheers, > > Ben | yngwin > Gentoo developer > > Call it then: don't hurt others only because you hate systemd. Again, including that unit file won't hurt you at all
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/26/2013 01:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 26 May 2013 01:24:03 -0500 Daniel Campbell > wrote: > >> On 05/25/2013 02:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >>> We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages >>> not providing systemd units). We should come to better >>> consensus on systemd integration and we were getting there >>> with the idea of INSTALL_MASK. I don't know that it is a >>> working solution yet. I have to oppose adding unit files >>> unless we have a way to opt out for reasons I gave earlier, >>> regarding embedded systems where one needs to conserve space >>> aggressively. And we may have found a way to do so without >>> cluttering ebuilds with USE flags. >>> >>> Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for >>> opting out? I can't support this initiative without such a >>> solution and I would be happy to work with the systemd people >>> to reach it, ie I'll test. >> >> I'm not a dev (though I would like to be...), but consider me >> interested in testing an opt-out method as well. I'm going to >> try INSTALL_MASK and see what happens. I'm not sure if any of my >> packages have systemd units yet, though. > > Please fix your e-mail client to send replies to the mail you are > replying it, instead of the top mail in the thread. > >> As far as resisting systemd, why is that so bad? Vertical >> integration is generally a bad idea with the sole exception of >> when your use case(s) line up perfectly with the ivory tower and >> you need all of the offered features. If Gentoo falls to >> systemd, there will literally be no Linux-based distros left to >> prevent it from taking over, and as a result Linux-based systems >> will become more and more tightly integrated, killing the choice >> that Gentoo truly stands for and homogenizing everything. > > It is bad because ebuilds are not place to put politics into. If > you want to become dev, you should understand this. We are > supposed to be serious people. Serious people don't break user > systems or refuse to support them in the name of manifesting their > wishes. > > It is bad because it's not systemd that's losing, it's Gentoo. > Except for the fact that there's just a few people that take > Gentoo seriously these days. > > Upstreams clearly show that they don't care. We can either sit in > the corner and resent, or we can work on improving the situation. > And going on flamewars or manifestations doesn't really improve > anything, you should know that by now. > Sorry, I sent the e-mail to the list under the wrong e-mail address and retooled a forward to try to correct it. It seems my idea didn't work. I'm using Thunderbird, so if this reply is screwed up as well, I'd appreciate some insight to fix it. I agree that user systems shouldn't be broken, and that devs should be serious about their responsibilities. I'm not exactly sure how Gentoo is losing out on anything, but that's probably because I'm biased against systemd. From the opposite side of the fence, Gentoo may become less relevant to the vertical integration people if it doesn't support systemd in some form. It's a choice and thus it should be supported. If INSTALL_MASK is really all that's needed to protect anti-systemd people, then perhaps the Gentoo team doesn't need to do anything at all, so that's awesome. Each time I see this come up I wish there wasn't so much activism present in the GNU/Linux world so people could focus more on fixing problems and less on politics, but the politics have to be acted on and/or against or it gets in the way of problem-solving and software diversity. I stick with Gentoo because most of the people working on it seem so level-headed and keep the idea of choice in mind. I guess I'm rambling, so I guess I'll close with a "Thanks". -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRobu1AAoJEJUrb08JgYgH198H/38gtUviiMCV3GZGm/1kiORO njwbiwqZm3HHycrUxDa5jOUt6HPN7MH+pTvNf/Cl16zv1/CxiOpr4oJHCJFUDTd7 3vpmexIeN82Qw3RKW3ADuwOxBjgUbPz+btMN8a2szVnwl524BHldD1wiQ9E6BxRy zSbqWR3VcNeZpCD9nvXBj4C9CbXO738EWRcAugGG4/3Vw1ntuYGvhrZxeDEcZtFa 4sVaRI6MPuWetvF0KbgnLQc9N3XgSNidb+LyIaG6oO1wG3ODldrkKwtGLMu8/sG6 NA0CEH0MTTlb2ErdW/DT6g/++Wu6qz4aZc+XWwxj1wK9uTGWiK+sDzuhTzLrunM= =T3wH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On 26 May 2013 00:48, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800 > Ben de Groot wrote: >> Unless I am mistaken, we did NOT agree anywhere that Gentoo >> maintainers MUST add systemd support when upstream does not ship such >> files. > > We did agree that Gentoo maintainers are not supposed to work on > enabling systemd support if they don't want to. OK, that sounds good. > On the other hand, we > also agreed that they shouldn't refuse unit files if anyone else > does the work for them. Where is this policy documented? >> [...] >> And you misunderstood: it is systemd that is aggressively opposed to >> Gentoo. But apparently that doesn't bother some of our developers and >> Gentoo is becoming more and more welcoming to it. > > Protecting freedom through taking away the freedom of using systemd? > Makes sense really. That would be similar to the way the GPL protects software freedom. Does that not make sense to you either? But it isn't even like that. I'm not taking away anyone's freedom to use systemd. You can do so if you wish. You can add unit files to your system by yourself, or use an overlay. There are various ways this could be realized even within Gentoo. But you seem to dismiss all of those, and will only be happy by forcing maintainers to add support to packages they maintain, even if they believe it is a bad idea. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
Am Samstag, den 25.05.2013, 15:53 -0400 schrieb Anthony G. Basile: > On 05/25/2013 02:13 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > On 05/25/2013 05:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: > >> But if a co-maintainer pushes through a change that I oppose, then > >> working together becomes quite difficult. In this case I opted to > >> give up maintainership. > >> > > Ben, > > > > We've been working together, in the same team(s), for more than 4 > > years and we never had a single problem in co-maintaining packages. I > > would never expected you to make so much noise because I committed a > > file (yes a file, *not* a patch) that changes absolutely *nothing* to > > existing users but it helps all those users who want to use systemd. > > > > I am very disappointed and confused. > > > > You should have known me better by now. > > > > - -- > > Regards, > > Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang > > > > We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not > providing systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd > integration and we were getting there with the idea of INSTALL_MASK. I > don't know that it is a working solution yet. I have to oppose adding > unit files unless we have a way to opt out for reasons I gave earlier, > regarding embedded systems where one needs to conserve space > aggressively. And we may have found a way to do so without cluttering > ebuilds with USE flags. Even though I don't care about a couple of files more on my FS I would prefer to find a solution with functions provided by PMS, not portage alone. > > Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for opting > out? I can't support this initiative without such a solution and I > would be happy to work with the systemd people to reach it, ie I'll test. > Maybe we have to find a more generic solution for this, because there is bug #235944 [1] which request extra config snippets for rsyslog added to various packages. Or is this something different? If yes, how? Best, Tiziano [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=235944
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On 26 May 2013 01:00, Pacho Ramos wrote: > We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle > devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of > "boycott" attitudes should stop in favor of common sense. Common sense would be to recognize that systemd is a bad implementation of a bad idea, and to boycott it distro-wide. But you know what they say about common sense... -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On 26 May 2013 02:13, Markos Chandras wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 05/25/2013 05:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: >> >> But if a co-maintainer pushes through a change that I oppose, then >> working together becomes quite difficult. In this case I opted to >> give up maintainership. >> > Ben, > > We've been working together, in the same team(s), for more than 4 > years and we never had a single problem in co-maintaining packages. I > would never expected you to make so much noise because I committed a > file (yes a file, *not* a patch) that changes absolutely *nothing* to > existing users but it helps all those users who want to use systemd. > > I am very disappointed and confused. > > You should have known me better by now. It is exactly because of our good history together that I was so surprised and disappointed to see you disregarding my opinion in this, and dismissing it as my problem. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:53:21 -0400 "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: > We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not > providing systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd > integration and we were getting there with the idea of INSTALL_MASK. I > don't know that it is a working solution yet. I have to oppose adding > unit files unless we have a way to opt out for reasons I gave earlier, > regarding embedded systems where one needs to conserve space > aggressively. And we may have found a way to do so without cluttering > ebuilds with USE flags. You could drop conf.d and init.d files to save space, unit files are obviously smaller. > Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for opting > out? I can't support this initiative without such a solution and I > would be happy to work with the systemd people to reach it, ie I'll test. INSTALL_MASK *is* a working solution. And I've designed app-portage/install-mask which sets it up for you. If you want something better, just integrate 'keywords' (like 'systemd', 'doc', 'man') into INSTALL_MASK, and be done with it. Just make sure to store the list of recognized keywords in the repo rather than keeping it rotting inside portage code. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On Sun, 26 May 2013 01:24:03 -0500 Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 05/25/2013 02:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not > > providing systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd > > integration and we were getting there with the idea of INSTALL_MASK. I > > don't know that it is a working solution yet. I have to oppose adding > > unit files unless we have a way to opt out for reasons I gave earlier, > > regarding embedded systems where one needs to conserve space > > aggressively. And we may have found a way to do so without cluttering > > ebuilds with USE flags. > > > > Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for opting > > out? I can't support this initiative without such a solution and I > > would be happy to work with the systemd people to reach it, ie I'll test. > > I'm not a dev (though I would like to be...), but consider me interested > in testing an opt-out method as well. I'm going to try INSTALL_MASK and > see what happens. I'm not sure if any of my packages have systemd units > yet, though. Please fix your e-mail client to send replies to the mail you are replying it, instead of the top mail in the thread. > As far as resisting systemd, why is that so bad? Vertical integration is > generally a bad idea with the sole exception of when your use case(s) > line up perfectly with the ivory tower and you need all of the offered > features. If Gentoo falls to systemd, there will literally be no > Linux-based distros left to prevent it from taking over, and as a result > Linux-based systems will become more and more tightly integrated, > killing the choice that Gentoo truly stands for and homogenizing everything. It is bad because ebuilds are not place to put politics into. If you want to become dev, you should understand this. We are supposed to be serious people. Serious people don't break user systems or refuse to support them in the name of manifesting their wishes. It is bad because it's not systemd that's losing, it's Gentoo. Except for the fact that there's just a few people that take Gentoo seriously these days. Upstreams clearly show that they don't care. We can either sit in the corner and resent, or we can work on improving the situation. And going on flamewars or manifestations doesn't really improve anything, you should know that by now. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On 05/25/2013 02:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 05/25/2013 02:13 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA512 >> >> On 05/25/2013 05:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: >>> But if a co-maintainer pushes through a change that I oppose, then >>> working together becomes quite difficult. In this case I opted to >>> give up maintainership. >>> >> Ben, >> >> We've been working together, in the same team(s), for more than 4 >> years and we never had a single problem in co-maintaining packages. I >> would never expected you to make so much noise because I committed a >> file (yes a file, *not* a patch) that changes absolutely *nothing* to >> existing users but it helps all those users who want to use systemd. >> >> I am very disappointed and confused. >> >> You should have known me better by now. >> >> - -- Regards, >> Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer >> http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang >> > > We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not > providing systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd > integration and we were getting there with the idea of INSTALL_MASK. I > don't know that it is a working solution yet. I have to oppose adding > unit files unless we have a way to opt out for reasons I gave earlier, > regarding embedded systems where one needs to conserve space > aggressively. And we may have found a way to do so without cluttering > ebuilds with USE flags. > > Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for opting > out? I can't support this initiative without such a solution and I > would be happy to work with the systemd people to reach it, ie I'll test. > I'm not a dev (though I would like to be...), but consider me interested in testing an opt-out method as well. I'm going to try INSTALL_MASK and see what happens. I'm not sure if any of my packages have systemd units yet, though. As far as resisting systemd, why is that so bad? Vertical integration is generally a bad idea with the sole exception of when your use case(s) line up perfectly with the ivory tower and you need all of the offered features. If Gentoo falls to systemd, there will literally be no Linux-based distros left to prevent it from taking over, and as a result Linux-based systems will become more and more tightly integrated, killing the choice that Gentoo truly stands for and homogenizing everything. That said, I realize that unit files don't intrude much on choice, and I'm happy that there is discussion on finding ways around it and making everyone happy (like INSTALL_MASK) instead of pushing ideas on users and telling them to deal with it. Out of curiosity though, is there a document that outlines how Gentoo Council members are chosen, when/if decisions can be revisited, and/or if a member's views are audited for neutrality? I'm somewhat interested in the way decisions are made within Gentoo.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On 05/25/2013 03:58 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for opting out? I can't support this initiative without such a solution and I would be happy to work with the systemd people to reach it, ie I'll test. What about INSTALL_MASK does not work? I put the responsibility for designing a more idiot-proof opt-out system in the hands of those that actually care about it. Most of us are on systems with plenty of storage, and those who are not (embedded devs) should be perfectly capable of setting INSTALL_MASK without hosing their systems. Maybe it is sufficient. I seem to recall someone saying (either on the list or IRC) that it needed some work. If its good enough, then problem solved. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail: bluen...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On 5/25/13 6:48 PM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote: I'm taking this from https://bugs.gentoo.org/412697 to the dev mailing list, since this discussion doesn't really belong on bugzilla. Seems that *upstream* had to a bit of work in order to support the various bits of systemd (not just the simple unit apparently) I can understand there is some hurry so somebody could gloat "and even Gentoo/Sabayon supports systemd", yet I wouldn't *rush* things and I would consider getting something sorted out sanely for everybody. I doubt I would be treated that nicely if I start spamming all the upstreams about supporting runit and demand they to maintain those init rules. We can be kind with difficult upstreams but just up to a point. That said, I'd rather have set something along the lines of: - get the eselect init machinery in place - decide seriously if we want to consider units (and init.d files) as manpages and threat them in the same way. This way nosystemd in the features would spare you some files as it does for manpages. - repeat the same treatment for openrc and runit runscripts. The alternative of having split packages seems a waste of inodes, probably in the end having the package manager keep track of this data would be better. lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:02:26 +0200 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Rich Freeman schrieb: > >> Yet another stand. No offense but I'm afraid it's quite childish of you. > >> I don't understand why you're so proud of it. It's a bit like 'Gentoo > >> will play as I like. If it doesn't, then I will play against Gentoo. > >> And if that doesn't help, I will resent and slam the door, and then > >> write to ml about it.' > > > > Honestly, if people want to have that attitude they might as well stop > > maintaining anything that installs a daemon. As a developer you have > > NO power to prevent somebody else from co-maintaining, and since those > > devs who use systemd are likely to want to have units and they're > > willing to do the work, you can expect somebody to show up and add a > > unit. > > This is why I suggested that in case of uncooperative maintainers and > upstreams, put the systemd unit in an extra package. Like it is done for > selinux policies. If we are to introduce split packages, we should start where doing it where it actually *makes sense*, rather than doing that to work-around stubbornness of uncooperative developers. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Rich Freeman schrieb: >>> Yet another stand. No offense but I'm afraid it's quite childish of you. >>> I don't understand why you're so proud of it. It's a bit like 'Gentoo >>> will play as I like. If it doesn't, then I will play against Gentoo. >>> And if that doesn't help, I will resent and slam the door, and then >>> write to ml about it.' >> >> Honestly, if people want to have that attitude they might as well stop >> maintaining anything that installs a daemon. As a developer you have >> NO power to prevent somebody else from co-maintaining, and since those >> devs who use systemd are likely to want to have units and they're >> willing to do the work, you can expect somebody to show up and add a >> unit. > > This is why I suggested that in case of uncooperative maintainers and > upstreams, put the systemd unit in an extra package. Like it is done for > selinux policies. In this case the developer adding the unit WAS a maintainer. Nothing prevents any dev from adding themself as a maintainer to any package. My point was just that if people plan to stop maintaining packages whenever this happens that they'll end up not maintaining many packages, because it is a trend that will continue. IMHO it isn't really important for devs to co-maintain packages to add unit files, but certainly they can do so. Developers don't own the packages they maintain. Splitting unit files into separate packages is just going to make us look like Debian, with everything with a daemon having 15 packages in the tree. Would it make sense to split init.d scripts into a separate package? The Council already decided that the appropriate way to handle unit files was to put them in the package, without a USE flag, and users could mask them if they didn't want them around. > > With x32, I generally refused to apply the patches to x11 maintained packages > before they had upstream ack first. x32 generally involved code patches, which involve a lot more risk of breakage to existing users and in general are a bigger pain since anytime the underlying source changes you have to re-diff them. I could see more of a push for co-maintaining in this case. Unit files are just files - you stick them in filesdir and in your ebuild and generally you touch them about as often as you touch init scripts, which is rare. If a maintainer does have to touch their init scripts and it was because a binary was renamed or something, then they can just ping the systemd team if they want them to update the units. In any case, nothing is being appealed here. Ben basically quit maintaining a package, which is his right, and the remaining maintainers are keeping the unit around. The intent of the systemd team isn't to get developers to quit, but frankly I don't think we need to coddle people to the point where threats to quit are a reason to not add units to packages. I think Ben is making a mistake, and frankly if you are trying to resist the systemd takeover then Gentoo is one of your best options out there so you might as well make sure the packages you use are well-maintained even if they also work for systemd users. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
Rich Freeman schrieb: >> Yet another stand. No offense but I'm afraid it's quite childish of you. >> I don't understand why you're so proud of it. It's a bit like 'Gentoo >> will play as I like. If it doesn't, then I will play against Gentoo. >> And if that doesn't help, I will resent and slam the door, and then >> write to ml about it.' > > Honestly, if people want to have that attitude they might as well stop > maintaining anything that installs a daemon. As a developer you have > NO power to prevent somebody else from co-maintaining, and since those > devs who use systemd are likely to want to have units and they're > willing to do the work, you can expect somebody to show up and add a > unit. This is why I suggested that in case of uncooperative maintainers and upstreams, put the systemd unit in an extra package. Like it is done for selinux policies. > The very nature of Gentoo leads to situations where you'll get > requests from other devs to add support for crazy stuff to your > packages (X32, prefix, init systems, etc). As long as somebody else > is willing to do the work to maintain it (as a developer or proxy) and > it doesn't hurt conventional users, we should cooperate. With x32, I generally refused to apply the patches to x11 maintained packages before they had upstream ack first. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not providing > systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd integration > and we were getting there with the idea of INSTALL_MASK. I don't know that > it is a working solution yet. I have to oppose adding unit files unless we > have a way to opt out for reasons I gave earlier, regarding embedded systems > where one needs to conserve space aggressively. And we may have found a way > to do so without cluttering ebuilds with USE flags. > > Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for opting out? I > can't support this initiative without such a solution and I would be happy > to work with the systemd people to reach it, ie I'll test. This already went before the Council, and the decision was that INSTALL_MASK IS the working solution for opting out. If somebody wants to come up with a better one and propose it they're of course welcome to, but in the meantime, INSTALL_MASK is the official solution. The whole point of having a Council is so that you don't have to reach 100.0% consensus on every single decision. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for opting out? I > can't support this initiative without such a solution and I would be happy > to work with the systemd people to reach it, ie I'll test. > What about INSTALL_MASK does not work? I put the responsibility for designing a more idiot-proof opt-out system in the hands of those that actually care about it. Most of us are on systems with plenty of storage, and those who are not (embedded devs) should be perfectly capable of setting INSTALL_MASK without hosing their systems.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On 05/25/2013 02:13 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/25/2013 05:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: But if a co-maintainer pushes through a change that I oppose, then working together becomes quite difficult. In this case I opted to give up maintainership. Ben, We've been working together, in the same team(s), for more than 4 years and we never had a single problem in co-maintaining packages. I would never expected you to make so much noise because I committed a file (yes a file, *not* a patch) that changes absolutely *nothing* to existing users but it helps all those users who want to use systemd. I am very disappointed and confused. You should have known me better by now. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not providing systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd integration and we were getting there with the idea of INSTALL_MASK. I don't know that it is a working solution yet. I have to oppose adding unit files unless we have a way to opt out for reasons I gave earlier, regarding embedded systems where one needs to conserve space aggressively. And we may have found a way to do so without cluttering ebuilds with USE flags. Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for opting out? I can't support this initiative without such a solution and I would be happy to work with the systemd people to reach it, ie I'll test. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail: bluen...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/25/2013 05:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: > > But if a co-maintainer pushes through a change that I oppose, then > working together becomes quite difficult. In this case I opted to > give up maintainership. > Ben, We've been working together, in the same team(s), for more than 4 years and we never had a single problem in co-maintaining packages. I would never expected you to make so much noise because I committed a file (yes a file, *not* a patch) that changes absolutely *nothing* to existing users but it helps all those users who want to use systemd. I am very disappointed and confused. You should have known me better by now. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJRoP9eXxSAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQzNTVDNDczOUYzRjJEMTRGNDRGMzU2RkMw OUJGNEY1NEMyQkE3RjNDAAoJEAm/T1TCun88XWoP/2Jlub+fnEWCx+CJNVZaeP6u hCISBCdljcihARB+XP2XkTKc4x/VLc9EdMrTIvLOZVheK2qvZ71rul/IxmUOyLmw m93ui4Dn76UTASqmB6S7RA7qIFGAGs9OBj6oV5xlKVLppGGs/EzsMuguPwI4JmZs YqGKLHfPZPHmBuTANPq03xICZwnj8vG6vmhiHLamwY0IV7LR4Nx3fN5j4tAxVCfd m9Q8+ji8ixon72w5utcvQMk0tRAIsOJpWNvu3Aq6SIbOtsrFTHFglADZi5dvJqVk 3Zg51AWz++KvzUL966gk98HnpULtXw7Wh9BpQ0zf1GNfrbfi/MsE2+2ZZ5RfHmKV 5wRgYHAj+3L1sR5xcDVC9nZko5ku8BKuk6PDrpl8fU9j2bGcdbDOniwgGKNxc6+G LmLKrCJ8OS1QvNAtoIh9ZeQR3Yx1yfkQfFO6+GKuMMFGQ8Ji5spGsUubLa9tSzxz O6PZGV5zY6ZBen/QDa+dkDmzRdWvK826pxj5w/udDgCR65bzeASAhLEXK/xVVP2H MhjKv8K9QDFWg1YRVFHTLenKeY2j7rqNJ6+33Rn0MSL/bS9ouNNcK0q1xHZHoHd4 0CMfmBP6vnBHEJxPzJlvhm8XPQwhDiq7BvHlKvHTe6PWJqKr0HuKNH2pwWv8NpYu 0UCknKj9e8QLkdUEtdBK =QRtO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800 > Ben de Groot wrote: >> But if a co-maintainer pushes through a change that I oppose, then >> working together becomes quite difficult. In this case I opted to give >> up maintainership. > > Yet another stand. No offense but I'm afraid it's quite childish of you. > I don't understand why you're so proud of it. It's a bit like 'Gentoo > will play as I like. If it doesn't, then I will play against Gentoo. > And if that doesn't help, I will resent and slam the door, and then > write to ml about it.' Honestly, if people want to have that attitude they might as well stop maintaining anything that installs a daemon. As a developer you have NO power to prevent somebody else from co-maintaining, and since those devs who use systemd are likely to want to have units and they're willing to do the work, you can expect somebody to show up and add a unit. The very nature of Gentoo leads to situations where you'll get requests from other devs to add support for crazy stuff to your packages (X32, prefix, init systems, etc). As long as somebody else is willing to do the work to maintain it (as a developer or proxy) and it doesn't hurt conventional users, we should cooperate. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote: > I'm taking this from https://bugs.gentoo.org/412697 to the dev mailing > list, since this discussion doesn't really belong on bugzilla. Since Bugzilla is down at the moment and it seems not to be mentioned anywhere in the mail, the package is x11-misc/lightdm. > Some background copied from the bug report: > > (In reply to comment #21) > > (In reply to comment #19) > > > WTF man? No, we do not _need_ to add support for an alternative init > > > system > > > that is so aggressively opposed to what we stand for. But since you pushed > > > this change through against my wishes, I will remove myself as maintainer > > > of > > > this package. > > You seem to have ignored all the discussions in -dev where it was agreed to > > install systemd files without even a useflag. > > I haven't ignored the discussion. We agreed to install systemd files > IF they are shipped by upstream. Where? I don't even think I've seen a single statement like this on the late threads. > > So really, if you disagree > > this is your problem since the community agreed to do it. > > Unless I am mistaken, we did NOT agree anywhere that Gentoo > maintainers MUST add systemd support when upstream does not ship such > files. We did agree that Gentoo maintainers are not supposed to work on enabling systemd support if they don't want to. On the other hand, we also agreed that they shouldn't refuse unit files if anyone else does the work for them. > > It is also NOT documented anywhere that Gentoo supports *ONLY* openrc. > > Just grep for "systemd_dounit" in the tree and see how many pakcages do > > that. > > So? That does not mean that as package maintainer I have to accept a > patch to support a non-default init system. Some maintainers may > choose to do so, others may choose not to. I'm afraid you're using the word 'patch' incorrectly here. If it was about a patch, I would agree with you. A patch -- something that actually modifies package sources or files currently installed by package. A patch that could mean that our package diverges from upstream or introduces new bugs for existing users. A unit file is *not* a patch. It's a file. A file that is incorporated into the package without modifying its existing contents or behavior on non-systemd systems. It's not something that could really cause problems for OpenRC users. > > It is very sad to be threatened over and over. If I do something then X > > people will be unhappy. If I do it Y people will be unhappy. So in this case > > I did what we agreed to do in the mailing list. > > We did not agree on this. Package maintainers may do as they wish for > their own packages. Package maintainers are to respect other developers, teams and users. While their wishes are important, Gentoo rules and policies are even more important. Much like quite a consistent experience for users. > The whole paragraph on that page says: "Gentoo is a free operating > system based on either Linux or FreeBSD that can be automatically > optimized and customized for just about any application or need. > Extreme configurability, performance and a top-notch user and > developer community are all hallmarks of the Gentoo experience. " > > Systemd is diametrically opposed to the FreeBSD, customization, > extreme configurability, and top-notch developer community aspects of > that. Systemd upstream developers have made it abundantly clear they > are not interested in working with Gentoo developers to see to the > needs of source-based distros. They stand for vertical integration > instead of customization and configurability. > > And you misunderstood: it is systemd that is aggressively opposed to > Gentoo. But apparently that doesn't bother some of our developers and > Gentoo is becoming more and more welcoming to it. Protecting freedom through taking away the freedom of using systemd? Makes sense really. > > > But since you pushed this change through against my wishes, I will remove > > > myself as maintainer of this package. > > > > If having systemd@g.o (or any other alternative init system, or any other > > developer permitted by them or a higher instance) add just a few characters > > you never need to touch and changing an unit file you don't want is too > > much, then you're just stepping away from the collaborative effort that > > pursues the goal as stated on the about page of Gentoo; we're all in this > > together, don't make hate tear you apart. > > I am making a stand for what I believe in. That is not hate. I simply > think that systemd is a bad idea. But if others want to make it work > on Gentoo, that is their time to waste. Gentoo is not about making stands or running vendettas. 'Sorry, you have to use Ubuntu because we support the freedom of letting our developers make stands against X'. And yet *the others* have actually wasted their time to make it work. And now you're angry at them for it. And actually wasting people's ti
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
Ben, you're really just being a child here. Is that a really big problem to add a small text file to your package?! Is that a big maintaining burden? If you can't test it, systemd team can, just like there are arch teams to test packages on other archs the maintainers can't. It's not something that changes code or functionality to that level that it can't be maintained with help. Nobody is forcing you to use systemd, there are just people how are asking to let them use it. You talk a lot about Gentoo is about choice, but you are not giving that choice. You're forcing people to *not* use systemd (not using something else), because you don't like it. Plain simple. On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 00:14 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió: > > I'm taking this from https://bugs.gentoo.org/412697 to the dev mailing > > list, since this discussion doesn't really belong on bugzilla. > > > > Some background copied from the bug report: > [...] > > Probably your following comment in bug report summarizes the real > reasons pointing you to not apply that patch after waiting a year for > upstream action: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412697#c8 > > Reading your comments in bug report gave me the impression of you > refusing to provide the unit file simply to try to interfere as much as > possible with getting higher systemd compatibility in Gentoo, even if I > don't see how adding the unit file will hurt openrc users and how it > will hurt you (as co-maintainer) when another dev is taking care of unit > file and systemd team can also maintain it. > > We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle > devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of > "boycott" attitudes should stop in favor of common sense. > > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 00:14 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió: > I'm taking this from https://bugs.gentoo.org/412697 to the dev mailing > list, since this discussion doesn't really belong on bugzilla. > > Some background copied from the bug report: [...] Probably your following comment in bug report summarizes the real reasons pointing you to not apply that patch after waiting a year for upstream action: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412697#c8 Reading your comments in bug report gave me the impression of you refusing to provide the unit file simply to try to interfere as much as possible with getting higher systemd compatibility in Gentoo, even if I don't see how adding the unit file will hurt openrc users and how it will hurt you (as co-maintainer) when another dev is taking care of unit file and systemd team can also maintain it. We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of "boycott" attitudes should stop in favor of common sense.
[gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)
I'm taking this from https://bugs.gentoo.org/412697 to the dev mailing list, since this discussion doesn't really belong on bugzilla. Some background copied from the bug report: (In reply to comment #21) > (In reply to comment #19) > > (In reply to comment #17) > > > (In reply to comment #15) > > > > (In reply to comment #14) > > > > > I believe it is time to reconsider this now that systemd support is > > > > > spread > > > > > all over the tree. > > > > > > > > I don't think so. If upstream ships it, we will install it. Otherwise we > > > > don't. Most Gentoo devs (as well as users) do not use systemd, nor have > > > > it > > > > installed. I don't think it can be expected of us to test and maintain > > > > systemd related patches. > > > > > > I expect this to change in the future. We can't keep denying that a new > > > init > > > system exists and we need to at least provide a limited support for it > > > (even > > > though we can't test it ourselves). > > > > WTF man? No, we do not _need_ to add support for an alternative init system > > that is so aggressively opposed to what we stand for. But since you pushed > > this change through against my wishes, I will remove myself as maintainer of > > this package. > You seem to have ignored all the discussions in -dev where it was agreed to > install systemd files without even a useflag. I haven't ignored the discussion. We agreed to install systemd files IF they are shipped by upstream. > So really, if you disagree > this is your problem since the community agreed to do it. Unless I am mistaken, we did NOT agree anywhere that Gentoo maintainers MUST add systemd support when upstream does not ship such files. And even if a few vocal members want that, that does not constitute community agreement. As far as I'm concerned, if it is not in the devmanual, or a council decision, it is not official policy. In that case individual package maintainers can do as they wish. > It is also NOT documented anywhere that Gentoo supports *ONLY* openrc. > Just grep for "systemd_dounit" in the tree and see how many pakcages do that. So? That does not mean that as package maintainer I have to accept a patch to support a non-default init system. Some maintainers may choose to do so, others may choose not to. > It is very sad to be threatened over and over. If I do something then X > people will be unhappy. If I do it Y people will be unhappy. So in this case > I did what we agreed to do in the mailing list. We did not agree on this. Package maintainers may do as they wish for their own packages. I already expressed my opinion twice in that bug report: if upstream ships a systemd unit file, we will let the ebuild install it. But we do not have to add a patch to enable systemd support where upstream does not ship it. Also, I am not "threatening" anyone. But if you so clearly disregard my opinion as co-maintainer, then I see no way we can work together on this. > You will soon realize that your stance against systemd will make you > disagree with more developers in the imminent future. That may be the case, but as long as OpenRC is Gentoo's default, and we are not forced to add support for systemd where upstream does not, then we can all continue on our merry way. It is in the nature of a big open source project like Gentoo that there will be disagreements. But we can agree to respectfully disagree and work out some policies that are acceptable for people with different opinions. (In reply to comment #22) > (In reply to comment #19) > > WTF man? No, we do not _need_ to add support for an alternative init system > > that is so aggressively opposed to what we stand for. > > Eh... > > 1) Who is "we"? > > 2) What exactly does this "we" people stand for? > > 3) Why does "we" stand aggressively opposed to an alternative init system? > > If you meant Gentoo, it stands for "... just about any application or need." > [1] and I don't see why it would be aggressively opposed to an alternative > init system which some of our users are experiencing a benefit from; apart > from a rather small group of people that decide to behave strongly opposed > to it. The whole paragraph on that page says: "Gentoo is a free operating system based on either Linux or FreeBSD that can be automatically optimized and customized for just about any application or need. Extreme configurability, performance and a top-notch user and developer community are all hallmarks of the Gentoo experience. " Systemd is diametrically opposed to the FreeBSD, customization, extreme configurability, and top-notch developer community aspects of that. Systemd upstream developers have made it abundantly clear they are not interested in working with Gentoo developers to see to the needs of source-based distros. They stand for vertical integration instead of customization and configurability. And you misunderstood: it is systemd that is aggressively opposed to Gentoo. But apparently that doesn't bother some of
