Re: Debhelper and /lib/systemd vs /usr/lib/systemd
Sam Hartman:
>>>>>> "Niels" == Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> writes:
>
> Niels> If the project consensus of this discussion is aligned with
> Niels> the belief that we should block decentralized volunteer work
> Niels> on the transition, I will respect the decision.
>
> I was really frustrated reading that, and I hope that my reading is more
> loaded than you meant.
Hi Sam,
I am sorry that my email caused you frustration. That part was loaded
with my own frustration over the situation and how we - as a project -
are handling the transition, which I failed to weed out in my
self-review of my outgoing email.
Since I do not know to what extend you took it personally, I want you
know that none of that frustration was aimed at you as an individual.
Once again, if you in any way felt that, then I apologies for that part.
> If what you're saying is that you'll respect it if the project consensus
> is that individual package maintainers should not move paths around at
> this time, then I think that's the key question.
>
That is what I wanted to say.
> I'll point out that we get a lot of value even if we don't move paths
> around in packages.
> In particular, we get a uniform environment where we can depend on a
> single directory layout.
> That removes classes of bugs even if we don't get to update canonical
> paths.
>
I believe we both agree on those statements being true (like many of the
previous ones). Where we seem to disagree is what should have priority
over other things. I sense that the timeliness of completion is of less
importance to you compared to other values and I respect that.
However, I will be considerably more demotivated by what I feel is a
never-ending transition than I am motivated by all of the points you
listed above. Which makes it a net-loss for me in years to come even if
it is a net-win for many others if the transition is not resolved in a
timely fashion.
>
>
> What I originally heard in your statement was a consensus that volunteers are not needed,
> and I don't think anyone support that.
>
My frustration had a different direction than the one what you seemed to
have understood it as, which is why I will not answer your extended
follow up to that part in detail - nor do I intend to expand on my
original words because I doubt it will make any of us happy. Once
again, my sincerest apologies for frustration.
Finally, I will retract myself from this debate for the time being. I do
not feel I have anything additional of constructive value to add to it
nor have enough spoons to invest to become a constructive participant.
I will await the evaluation of the consensus. I kindly ask that you CC
that to debhelper@packges.debian.org (or, at your choosing, report it as
a bug if it involves reverting the change) as I am not sure I will keep
track of this thread any more.
~Niels
Reply to: