On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 16:40 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:20:44AM -0400, Joshua Nichols wrote: > > Unless there's more discussions going on than I'm privy too... what I > > grokked out of the IRC log was that the argument was that it's an > > 'unofficial overlay'. > > No, this is about a project that was supposed to be suspended until > its details have been hashed out. > Just to take this to a humorous extreme - would you be content if sunrise ceased all operations?
I mean, the sundown overlay I've started on my server has nothing to do with it (except that it has all the same files), and apart from accidentally having the same users there is no relation implied. Since it never was a Gentoo project and does explicitly say in big red blinking letters that it is only supporting ebuilds for Gentoo-like distributions you don't have any hook to get it disabled. That would kill all those arguments while not changing any _facts_ about sunrise. That's what bugs me, you're lawyering around, disputing semantic border cases instead of doing anything I see as reasonable. You can't stop sunrise from existing on non-Gentoo hardware, you can't make the devs stop working on it, you could only pull it closer, let it run on Gentoo hardware and influence it. So you chose to not be able to influence it, but then complain when people do what they want to do in their spare time, only tangentially related to Gentoo. Now I'll just disappear for the weekend, don't flame too much in my absence ... Patrick -- Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
