On 21/04/14 12:40 AM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
[2014-04-20 20:22:59 -0400] Daniel Micay:
I don't really see any problem with moving a FOSS package with 52 votes to [community]. Whether or not people like the project isn't really relevant.
So you initially inquired about this on arch-dev-public because you knew it was a controversial issue, but when it turns out most answers are not what you hoped for you go ahead against them? Is that the logic here?
I brought it up on arch-dev-public because there were issues involving other packages. I wasn't looking for approval to move a package for FOSS software with 40 votes (>50 when it was moved) that I have significant interest in. I certainly adjusted what I planned to do based on the feedback here. I thought there might be interest in setting the PaX exceptions so it could be enabled out-of-the-box but there was not. There were very valid concerns about modules, which I think have been resolved by the decision to only use DKMS. I've backed down from the idea of ever incorporating the PaX exceptions into other packages and will try to handle it entirely within linux-grsec via RBAC. Other trusted users and developers will never have to put one bit of work into supporting this, and that was the only other concern raised. There are people who have a personal dislike of the software, as with anything else, and I don't really care. Beyond the issues above, I don't think anyone has raised a reason to keep this out of [community]. I don't there's there's any "slippery slope" here considering that using DKMS makes this kind of thing self-contained. It could even be written down as a policy somewhere that out-of-tree modules for non-[core] kernel packages are only supported via DKMS. There's not currently anything written down about this that I know of. I certainly don't get the impression that "most answers" are against it being in [community] at all. There was a strong consensus that PaX exceptions do not belong in other packages, and I can respect that. I currently have PaX enforcement disabled and will implement a less ideal solution internal to the package. 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.
What part of "do it in a separate repo for the time being" didn't you understand and/or like? That solution seemed to make everyone happy...
It didn't make me happy, nor did it seem to be a satisfactory answer to Connor, Barthalion or various others on IRC. A certain developer (I'll let them speak for themselves if they want to) suggested I just put it in [community] instead of being so cautious about it.
By the way, "Packager: Unknown Packager" looks bad.
I moved this from the unofficial repository on pkgbuild.com where I was previously building and hosting it, if you're curious why that's messed up. It will be fixed as soon as there's a new release or I start work on the PaX issue which won't be long.