On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:53:41 -0500 "Walter Dnes" <waltd...@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 07:21:21AM +0000, Duncan wrote > > Walter Dnes posted on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 01:33:04 -0500 as excerpted: > > > > > [Udev-systemd has] essentially announced ahead of time that most bugs > > > from non-systemd users would be closed with WONTFIX. > > > > Agreed, to this point. > > > > > Actually, for political reasons, I hope that eudev does submit a bunch > > > bugs+patches, and gets them rejected. Then whenever anyone complains > > > about not sharing code, show them a bunch of WONTFIX emails from > > > systemd/udev maintainers. > > > > This attitude is and the described events would be... unfortunate. > > > > For the reasons you list, I don't believe people should be /surprised/ if > > many such bugs+patches are rejected after submission, but that wouldn't > > make it any less unfortunate, and IMO, hoping they DO get rejected is the > > wrong attitude to have. > > I should've been clearer in my email, rather than a train-of-thought > approach... > > 1) For appearance's sake and to make our position better in outsiders' > view, I *HOPE* that eudev developers are co-operative in regards to > sharing patches with systemd/udev. > > 2) Given past history, I *EXPECT* at least some bugs to be "resolved" > by the systemd/udev developers as WONTFIX. It was their attitude that > led to eudev in the first place. > > Here's a brief overview of why I think that eudev (or equivalant) is > necessary... > > * Lennart Poettering wrote systemd > > * systemd will not run on machines with a separate /usr, and no > initramfs. Waaait, what? Did something change lately or are you just repeating the same bullshit for months? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
