On 21/04/14 01:54 AM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
Hi again,
As you might have noticed, I do not care too much about grsecurity, however I do care very much about doing things the right way. That's why I'll only respond to this:
[2014-04-21 01:21:16 -0400] Daniel Micay:
The mailing list wasn't the only place where I've discussed this. It has been a topic of conversation on various IRC channels, where numerous trusted users and developers voiced support for it. I don't think a vocal minority on the mailing list represents a consensus against it.
The arch-dev-public mailing list is *the* medium of discussion between developers and trusted users. That's why all of us have access to it, and that's why all of us are expected to read it. And it really is the *only* one: not all of us have access to #archlinux-dev or #archlinux-tu and not all of us follow arch-general or aur-general.
And when I say "medium of discussion", the "discussion" bit is extremely important! It's not just a poll you or someone else conducts by asking people privately on different channels, it really is: a discussion where everyone is free to raise arguments for or against, then if a consensus emerges we follow it, otherwise we vote.
I think I addressed the issues that were raised. I don't feel any need to take into account trashing of the project. If there is a remaining concern about how it could create extra work for other packagers, then I'm open to seeing if it can be addressed and dropping the package if it can't be fixed.
Now I'm sorry to say this but it seems to me you have handled this issue in the worst possible way: ignoring community feedback as you saw fit.
I responded to constructive feedback such as the issues raised about modules, PaX exceptions and the possibility of work being created for others in general. The package already meets every criteria for being included in [community], and that wasn't why I brought it up. I sent a mail here because I needed to figure out if I was going to be stepping on people's toes by adding PaX exceptions to packages - the answer is a resounding *yes*, so I will not propose it again or add the flags to my packages. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing making this package any more exceptional than something like vttest or whowatch with the adjusted plans (DKMS and no PaX flags).