On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:29:16 -0500 William Hubbs <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am splitting this to a separate thread, because it could become a > long thread pretty easily. > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 07:14:00AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Samuli Suominen > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I've been considering packaging systemd in sys-fs/udev with > > > USE="systemd" and use of 'if' and 'else' plus creating > > > virtual/systemd for proper / installation and some other minor, > > > but bad design choices done in the systemd packaging > > > > What is the consensus of the systemd team regarding those choices? > > Would it make more sense to just fix the packaging rather than > > forking it? I'm not sure what all the issues are, or how > > widespread the disagreement is. > > I am a member of the systemd team, and I know what needs to be done. I > have offered patches multiple times the last few months to fix the > packaging, only to have them refused, Why were they refused? > even though I have presented, > multiple times, strong recommendations from systemd upstream that I am > correct, as well as making it clear that I would take responsibility > for breakages the change would cause. Originally, we did install > systemd correctly, but that was changed some time back, Why was it changed? > before I > joined the team. All Samuli and I have asked is that the change we > made that puts everything in /usr be undone. Why is the change refused to be undone? > Besides the udev team, > this would have benefits for the gnome team. Why would it benefit them? > You may ask why I have offered patches instead of just fixing the > ebuild since I am a team member. That is because even team members > aren't allowed to touch bugs assigned to [email protected] [1], Well, if there are conflicts within a team then I can agree that no member is allowed to touch the bug without a collaborative decision; but from what it appears this bug has been handed in a way that one member appears to take all decisions and the other member has nothing to say. In particular, comments 5 and 11 change the state of the bug without giving any reasoning about why that change in state was made; this is unacceptable, it gives us no reason to believe the state change. For what reason did these specific state changes happen to this bug? > my personal efforts to advocate for this specific change got me this > comment as well [2]. This bug, and others like it, would never have > come up if we were installing systemd the way upstream recommends. Why was the / -> /usr change so necessary that it causes bugs like this? > I'll keep this short for now unless others here want to see the rest > of my evidence, We do not only want to see evidence, but also the reasoning behind it; from both sides, because otherwise there is nothing to discuss here. > but What it boils down to is this. As a member of the > systemd team, I have questioned the way we are doing things, multiple > times. I feel that we aren't doing things in the best interest of the > distro as a whole. However, consensus doesn't matter on that team; the > members are expected to do exactly as they are told. It begs for evidence, explanation and change. > William > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472792#C11 > [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/478538#C11 -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : [email protected] GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
