On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 14:51:34 -0400 Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:35 AM orbea <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:17:00 +0100 > > Sam James <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Rich Freeman <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 9:36 AM Eddie Chapman <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > >> in Gentoo. Have any of these 4 maintainers publicly said > > > >> (anywhere) that they are not interested in being maintainers > > > >> anymore (which is fine if that is the case)? We're not talking > > > >> here about a lone maintainer of some peripheral package that's > > > >> disappeared leaving an orphaned package. > > > > > > > > It isn't like somebody is censoring the lists or waging commit > > > > wars on the metadata.xml/mask file. If somebody was eager to > > > > maintain it I'm sure they'd have spoken up. > > > > > > > >> I'm an outsider to Gentoo development (just a heavy user for > > > >> over a decade both personally and professionally) so I might > > > >> have missed something. I just find it puzzling. > > > > > > > > I'm not puzzled by what is going on, or by your email, because > > > > it happens basically anytime a high-profile package is > > > > treecleaned. Yes, Gentoo is about choice, but somebody has to > > > > actually do work to make the choices viable. There are always > > > > more people interested in using software than maintaining it. > > > > The frustration is completely understandable, but also kinda > > > > unavoidable. > > > > > > > > Repo QA standards don't mean that it has to barely work for your > > > > specific use case. The package has to deal with compatibility > > > > issues with stuff you don't use as well, which is why > > > > maintaining a system package can be hard work. It is usually > > > > less of an issue for more ordinary applications, which tend to > > > > have fewer interactions. If it is "good enough" for you as it > > > > is, then just move it to a private overlay and keep using it. > > > > You probably would need to override a virtual or two as well. > > > > Or publish your work somewhere others can use it. > > > > > > Yes. We value having a coherent system with decent UX and we have > > > to choose what we can support. Users are free to override those > > > choices in local repositories - and if they want advice on the > > > best way to do so, they're free to ask. > > > > > > > As evidenced by the ::libressl overlay where I am repeatedly > > copy/pasting changes from ::gentoo that have nothing to do with > > libressl this is not a very good solution. This is a huge amount of > > redundant and pointless effort that would be better suited being > > directly in the ::gentoo repo. > > I think most people aren't going to be swayed by "it's really > inefficient for me to do $xyz outside of ::gentoo" where xyz is > something that they find useless. It doesn't matter if it sways you or not, the reality is that your argument amounts to forcing people to do a lot of extra redundant work solving problems that have already been solved out of spite. > > > What would be required so this is not required for eudev too? At the > > risk of repeating myself its working on my systems and I am willing > > to look at bugs and put in effort into keeping it functional. > > > > I don't think this is a matter of not having people willing to put > > effort in, but that no one wants to let them have the chance. > > Conspiracy alert! > > It's been more than 2 years since > https://www.gentoo.org/support/news-items/2021-08-24-eudev-retirement.html > > People have had plenty of time. More chances than were fair have been > given. Nothing has changed, except eudev has further diverged from > upstream udev. > Unfortunately this flew under the radar for a lot of people, when I asked Sam about this on irc a while ago I was informed (As I understood) that eudev was still going to be an option into the future and as the ebuild was still getting updates I never considered this is how the core Gentoo devs felt.
