Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>> Roland Stigge wrote:
>>>>> Hi Gilles,
>>>>> first - I'm sorry if you sometimes feel offended by my work on Xenomai 
>>>>> in Debian. I understand that you are very much connected to your project 
>>>>> and want to have it working perfectly everywhere.
>>>>> Unfortunately, my time to work on this is limited and the last uploads 
>>>>> were work in progress - to provide latest Xenomai in Debian. Further 
>>>>> work on it was planned for this weekend.
>>>>> But please also understand that Debian developers will possibly 
>>>>> prioritize work on upstream packages where they feel their work is 
>>>>> appreciated. So please think about your tone before sending email and 
>>>>> driving people away from Xenomai.
>>>> What matters for me is Xenomai users, not the Debian package maintainer.
>>>> I am almost thinking that I would prefer Xenomai not having an
>>>> "official" Debian package which has been shipping for monthes with buggy
>>>> adeos patches and lagging behind upstream development.
>>> Hey guys, this leads to nothing.
>>> I agree with Gilles that a distro package that could appear to users
>>> like it's as mature as upstream while it isn't does not help anyone. But
>>> not all the work here is paid, and resources will remain limited. So
>>> Roland's remark is valid as well that not everything can be done
>>> instantly in The Perfect Way.
>>> The only way to resolve this without killing the idea of ready-to-use
>>> Xenomai package is to openly discuss the problems of both sides and try
>>> to find optimal solutions. I also bet Roland would be happy about
>>> patch-based discussions - just like we are for upstream. Just let the
>>> discussion take place here on this list, in an objective manner, and
>>> ideally before things may show up in releases etc.
>> As I already said, I think the proper place to discuss all this is on
>> the Xenomai mailing list. I have no problem renaming sigtest, at all, I
>> do not even require a patch to do it. The point is that we did not even
>> knew that it generated a conflict. And for me this is the real problem,
>> I am all for helping Roland generating good packages, but if he does not
>> want to talk to us, what choice do we have?
> We can only ask him kindly to remember xenomai-c...@gna.org.

This looks pointless, as we already had that argument in may 2008.


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to