Re: [arch-dev-public] rc.d files, unmaintained packages - and, the quality of our repositories

2013-07-17 Thread Connor Behan
On 17/07/13 04:51 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote: > Could we agree that going against the concerted decisions of official > packagers (as made on this list) is obviously wrong, and that you will > not do it again in the future? It'd be nice if we could all move on... Yes, never again. signature.asc De

Re: [arch-dev-public] rc.d files, unmaintained packages - and, the quality of our repositories

2013-07-17 Thread Gaetan Bisson
[2013-07-17 12:06:24 -0700] Connor Behan: > As for the whole "push first discuss later" thing, people shouldn't be > afraid to take this approach. Maybe I misused it but "back in my day" > there was an Arch dev who had wise words > about

Re: [arch-dev-public] rc.d files, unmaintained packages - and, the quality of our repositories

2013-07-17 Thread Sébastien Luttringer
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Massimiliano Torromeo wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > >> By your light way of doing, you cause troubles to users of netctl > > > Not taking a particular side here but maybe I'm missing something because I > don't understand

Re: [arch-dev-public] rc.d files, unmaintained packages - and, the quality of our repositories

2013-07-17 Thread Massimiliano Torromeo
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > By your light way of doing, you cause troubles to users of netctl Not taking a particular side here but maybe I'm missing something because I don't understand why netctl users would be troubled by this. -- Massimiliano Torromeo

Re: [arch-dev-public] rc.d files, unmaintained packages - and, the quality of our repositories

2013-07-17 Thread Sébastien Luttringer
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Connor Behan wrote: > > As for the whole "push first discuss later" thing, people shouldn't be > afraid to take this approach. Maybe I misused it but "back in my day" > there was an Arch dev who had wise words >

Re: [arch-dev-public] rc.d files, unmaintained packages - and, the quality of our repositories

2013-07-17 Thread Connor Behan
This may be a dead horse, but a few points. On 16/07/13 07:20 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote: > If you wish to go against this decision (such as to support other init > systems) you need to submit a proposal here so we can discuss it first. One could argue that having syslog-ng in [extra] supports other

[arch-dev-public] Signoff report for [testing]

2013-07-17 Thread Arch Website Notification
=== Signoff report for [testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 3 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 9 fully signed off packages * 45 packages missing signoffs * 19 packages older than 14 days (Note: