Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > > If upstream doesn't support something it's not a regression. This > upstream removes features all the time in the name of progress. Either > get on the train or get run over by it. If /usr isn't mounted at boot > then systemd team doesn't what your system to boot, so either don't run > systemd or catch up with the rest of the world and learn what an > initramfs is. We should be introducing those changes in a way friendly to our users (ie warnings, docs, news, etc before going stable, or even testing in extreme cases). But yes, I don't see a problem with letting systemd do the systemd thing. The intent of the council meeting was to even allow longstanding Gentoo projects like udev to go this route as well, once we're sure everything is in place (no specific timeline was set, but seems likely in the next few months as long as docs/etc get updated). The systemd project can manage systemd as it sees fit, but it should not be constrained by QA issues over what goes in /usr vs /. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/11/2013 04:30 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2013-08-11, o godz. 20:59:01 > Tom Wijsman napisał(a): > >> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:29:16 -0500 >> William Hubbs 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 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? > > Because it introduced QA violations and unnecessary backwards migration > for our users. I'm not really into moving files every second month, > and so far the main argument was 'I have the citation here'. > >>> 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? > > Because systemd executables linked to a number of libraries in /usr > and moving those libraries to rootfs is not really an option. systemd > officially doesn't support running with separate /usr not mounted > at boot, and there's no point to pollute rootfs with a dozen > of late-use libraries. > >>> 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? > > Why should it be undone? Changing things back to a broken state is > called a regression. If upstream doesn't support something it's not a regression. This upstream removes features all the time in the name of progress. Either get on the train or get run over by it. If /usr isn't mounted at boot then systemd team doesn't what your system to boot, so either don't run systemd or catch up with the rest of the world and learn what an initramfs is. - -Zero > >>> 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 syst...@gentoo.org [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? > > Because I am *really* tired of replying to the same request over > and over again. WilliamH is continuously bombarding me with the same > request on mail, IRC, bugzilla and mailing lists. And almost every time > he pretends that I hadn't given him any arguments. > >>> 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? > > Installation in a different prefix doesn't *cause* bugs. In the worst > case, it triggers them. Bug was reported upstream and fixed. Upstream > didn't doubt this is their fault. > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSDa7YAAoJEKXdFCfdEflKVjAQAKcSbuo6aG4zk83tyOE80t80 woin3mxHIuN8x7smp7/qa8mXEeTHMnnlROIr8VbZDwz3S9e2ewfS34MM9R7ZrjLX VKFNGNfcTmwdqREIpuqthq309DP0NUjf3j3GnzQvyukVjbmshoZbd6pvVwxFfQJq OiGmL9e2v2IUnjrZvnytMIKHvdPCrYjhvRKu8afUUPgNAbd6PasO8jM0Hwo/n46V egOt6KpAnC5dS35mKWp32NKdKMQm4eMuwWlbRXWolX/9RheJnw9cKYPkqE0JiRPR 17SKq8NBXnuTaJ++MbOh5JTLr8BOaBaxo0I8kjnsjDIbR84/wEkomCXv9YK5EO35 f4Pz3iMxbXVW4LrKHRRikD7IYCaekPnZz0adISPRqdrfJbnY7WYIt2CDPD+dolLc HEyo2+11hq8XrbmYB96dObF4jmW4fSV5NUBsP3d0RZyHpD8snGy3XgVJQWmXJ+LO CGq4WQk6ZMnNKb8jjNn5e79aC5YUL9Z9u+sDHz1ku8LQZaNiqRAN10QPIENcLH7S 6Ox5j5j7XtuPFKFe8rd+uFCyoqbq0zXpiPg39k/lxvd+RkG
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 10:53:16 +0400 Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2013 23:10, Tom Wijsman пишет: > > There is a mismatch between the people listed on the project page > > [1] and on the e-mail alias; the former lists 3 people, the latter > > 8. There surely is some inconsistency here; so, who is actually > > part of the team and who is just following along the mail alias? > > > > [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/systemd/ > > > > Project team members are listed on project's page. s/are/should be/; floppym has just been added, there was a clear difference between who is on that page and whom is acting as it. While not everyone on the mail alies is indeed a member, there was (or perhaps still is) some inconsistency between both. > They all should be > subscribed to apropriate alias(to get info about bugs), but also, > other devs(and even users) can be subscribed to alias too. So, alias > is not a source of getting list of project members :-) That, I know, yet it is often used (on IRC) in that way; last time I have added myself to the genkernel alias, people saw me as a member. But well, that's a different story, it would be nice to get willikins to separate people that just want to be subscribed and aren't a member. What really misses here is a herd which would end this confusion... -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
11.08.2013 23:10, Tom Wijsman пишет: > There is a mismatch between the people listed on the project page [1] > and on the e-mail alias; the former lists 3 people, the latter 8. There > surely is some inconsistency here; so, who is actually part of the > team and who is just following along the mail alias? > > [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/systemd/ > Project team members are listed on project's page. They all should be subscribed to apropriate alias(to get info about bugs), but also, other devs(and even users) can be subscribed to alias too. So, alias is not a source of getting list of project members :-) -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Qt project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue > wrote: >> Le dimanche 11 août 2013 à 22:09 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev a écrit : >>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >>> > On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:29:16 -0500 >>> > William Hubbs wrote: >>> > >>> >> 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 syst...@gentoo.org [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. >>> >>> This is expected, as it is similar to how systemd/gnome is managed :) >> >> I hope you are not talking about the Gentoo Gnome team as this would be >> very wrong. Every team member is heard on the team. > > I was talking about the designated upstreams. > > Regards, > Alon > In the future: don't. You've added nothing of substance to this thread, except three additional emails.
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > Le dimanche 11 août 2013 à 22:09 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev a écrit : >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> > On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:29:16 -0500 >> > William Hubbs wrote: >> > >> >> 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 syst...@gentoo.org [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. >> >> This is expected, as it is similar to how systemd/gnome is managed :) > > I hope you are not talking about the Gentoo Gnome team as this would be > very wrong. Every team member is heard on the team. I was talking about the designated upstreams. Regards, Alon
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
Le dimanche 11 août 2013 à 22:09 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev a écrit : > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:29:16 -0500 > > William Hubbs wrote: > > > >> 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 syst...@gentoo.org [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. > > This is expected, as it is similar to how systemd/gnome is managed :) I hope you are not talking about the Gentoo Gnome team as this would be very wrong. Every team member is heard on the team. -- Gilles Dartiguelongue Gentoo
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Suggestion, before all the rest of gentoo-dev chimes in and the situation goes > from messy to hopeless: > > 1) Hold a regular, public team meeting of the systemd team. > 2) Confirm or elect the lead. > 3) First figure out what you as a team want. > ++ Best that this be resolved by the systemd team if at all possible, and the above is basically the GLEP 39 way to do it. Anyone on the team can always appeal to Council or ask Devrel to help out if you can't even get that far, but if you haven't elected a lead in the last 12 months this would be a perfect time to do it. That really doesn't require doing anything more than picking a time and showing up in #gentoo-meetings or whatever. I'd also do what seems to be happening already and have anybody who is actually on the team add themselves to the project page. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
Dnia 2013-08-11, o godz. 14:03:15 William Hubbs napisał(a): > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 02:44:09PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > I'll keep this short for now unless others here want to see the rest of > > > my evidence, 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. > > > > > > > I would not say that consensus doesn't matter, but rather that we have > > reached no consensus, and are rather in a stalemate. > > > > The team lead (mgorny) seems to strongly oppose making the proposed > > change. I'm not sure where the other team members stand. > > Who is on the team anyway? It looks like there isn't even consensus > about that. Currently most of the work is done by floppym and pacho. While at it, did you finally manage to run systemd? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
Dnia 2013-08-11, o godz. 20:59:01 Tom Wijsman napisał(a): > On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:29:16 -0500 > William Hubbs 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 > > > 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? Because it introduced QA violations and unnecessary backwards migration for our users. I'm not really into moving files every second month, and so far the main argument was 'I have the citation here'. > > 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? Because systemd executables linked to a number of libraries in /usr and moving those libraries to rootfs is not really an option. systemd officially doesn't support running with separate /usr not mounted at boot, and there's no point to pollute rootfs with a dozen of late-use libraries. > > 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? Why should it be undone? Changing things back to a broken state is called a regression. > > 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 syst...@gentoo.org [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? Because I am *really* tired of replying to the same request over and over again. WilliamH is continuously bombarding me with the same request on mail, IRC, bugzilla and mailing lists. And almost every time he pretends that I hadn't given him any arguments. > > 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? Installation in a different prefix doesn't *cause* bugs. In the worst case, it triggers them. Bug was reported upstream and fixed. Upstream didn't doubt this is their fault. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 02:44:09PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> > I'll keep this short for now unless others here want to see the rest of >> > my evidence, 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. >> > >> >> I would not say that consensus doesn't matter, but rather that we have >> reached no consensus, and are rather in a stalemate. >> >> The team lead (mgorny) seems to strongly oppose making the proposed >> change. I'm not sure where the other team members stand. > > Who is on the team anyway? It looks like there isn't even consensus > about that. > > According to the project page, it is mgorny, myself and dagger (I was > given the OK to add myself by mgorny). According to the #gentoo-systemd > channel, it is mgorny and floppym if you go by who has ops. According to > the bug bot on irc, it is a completely different set of people. > I would use the project page as the canonical team list. I will go ahead and add myself there. The only list you could get from willikins is the mail alias (!expn systemd). Anybody (including non-devs) can be listed on the alias.
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
Am Sonntag, 11. August 2013, 20:29:16 schrieb William Hubbs: > I am splitting this to a separate thread, because it could become a > long thread pretty easily. > Yep. Suggestion, before all the rest of gentoo-dev chimes in and the situation goes from messy to hopeless: 1) Hold a regular, public team meeting of the systemd team. 2) Confirm or elect the lead. 3) First figure out what you as a team want. I realize that this may delay things and be painful. However, it's important as a first step. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 14:44:09 -0400 Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM, William Hubbs > wrote: > > I'll keep this short for now unless others here want to see the > > rest of my evidence, 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. > > > > I would not say that consensus doesn't matter, but rather that we have > reached no consensus, and are rather in a stalemate. Does a consensus want to be made? If not, a discussion yields nothing. > The team lead (mgorny) seems to strongly oppose making the proposed > change. It is not an opposition with the lack of reasoning and evidence. > I'm not sure where the other team members stand. There is a mismatch between the people listed on the project page [1] and on the e-mail alias; the former lists 3 people, the latter 8. There surely is some inconsistency here; so, who is actually part of the team and who is just following along the mail alias? [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/systemd/ -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:29:16 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > >> 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 syst...@gentoo.org [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. This is expected, as it is similar to how systemd/gnome is managed :) Regards, Alon Bar-Lev.
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 02:44:09PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > I'll keep this short for now unless others here want to see the rest of > > my evidence, 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. > > > > I would not say that consensus doesn't matter, but rather that we have > reached no consensus, and are rather in a stalemate. > > The team lead (mgorny) seems to strongly oppose making the proposed > change. I'm not sure where the other team members stand. Who is on the team anyway? It looks like there isn't even consensus about that. According to the project page, it is mgorny, myself and dagger (I was given the OK to add myself by mgorny). According to the #gentoo-systemd channel, it is mgorny and floppym if you go by who has ops. According to the bug bot on irc, it is a completely different set of people. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:29:16 -0500 William Hubbs 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 > > 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 syst...@gentoo.org [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 : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > I'll keep this short for now unless others here want to see the rest of > my evidence, 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. > I would not say that consensus doesn't matter, but rather that we have reached no consensus, and are rather in a stalemate. The team lead (mgorny) seems to strongly oppose making the proposed change. I'm not sure where the other team members stand.
[gentoo-dev] systemd team consensus?
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 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, 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, before I joined the team. All Samuli and I have asked is that the change we made that puts everything in /usr be undone. Besides the udev team, this would have benefits for the gnome team. 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 syst...@gentoo.org [1], and 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. I'll keep this short for now unless others here want to see the rest of my evidence, 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. William [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472792#C11 [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/478538#C11 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
