On 27.01.2017 22:38, ProgAndy wrote:

Am 27.01.2017 um 21:41 schrieb Eli Schwartz via arch-general:

...

On 01/27/2017 01:27 PM, Christopher Reimer wrote:

...

I also noticed a few other pull request trying exactly that, which were instantly closed by Kevin Mihelich without any reasonable explanation. That's why I expected some resistance and prepared myself to counterargument a few of his concerns.

And I think I did quite good. Good enough to make him ignore me. Oh, he's ignoring you? I must be imagining this quote:

...

I am speaking specifically to what is or will be officially supported. The community is free to do whatever it wants outside of official support, and many people do this already for a number of boards. Merely including the package here would imply official support to the vast majority of users despite any 72pt blinking red warnings we could put up state otherwise. This then leads to said users expecting us to fix their problems.

This position is no different than it's been throughout the life of this project. Official support means an active, contributing developer has access to the hardware and can actively develop packages and address issues for that target. The hardware that we choose to spend our time and money on is our own choice, not a decision forced upon us.

That seems to be a very reasonable position. If the patch is so simple, then why don't you maintain it and provide the necessary binary packages? You should be able to create a custom user repository for your modifications just like we do for Arch Linux for some kernels.

I expected something like this. And as a matter of fact I plan to provide all necessary parts on my webspace. I even plan to compile and provide at least all other sunxi based uboot variants. http://c-reimer.de/alarm/ More will come in a few days. When I have time to write a script to make things easier.

-- Andreas

Reading the github thread, I'm not sure you'll be able to change his mind. As said by others, it's his right to reject the support of counterfeit Raspberry Pi's should he want to. I don't think his reasoning makes much sense, but it's his project to do what he wants with. Consider persuing other options to give people the benifits of your work (fork, some sort of patch, etc) On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Yaro Kasear wrote:

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Christopher Reimer wrote:

...

Hello list,

I'd like to get some feedback on this pull request discussion over at Arch Linux ARM: https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/pull/1444 (Backup: http://pastebin.com/x8H0mNiE)

Short summary: I wanted to contribute a simple patch to enable support for Banana Pi hardware. I tried that a few years back and got besides some other concerns the answer that it cannot be added, because at this time there were no upstream support and I accepted that.

This is no longer the case, so I thought it must be possible to add support now.

I also noticed a few other pull request trying exactly that, which were instantly closed by Kevin Mihelich without any reasonable explanation. That's why I expected some resistance and prepared myself to counterargument a few of his concerns.

And I think I did quite good. Good enough to make him ignore me.

Why am I writing this to the Arch Linux mailing list? Well, for quite some time I thought Arch Linux ARM is Arch Linux. And I think there are a lot more out there who think so. Therefore I think behavior like this could hurt the overall reputation of Arch Linux. Especially if a future goal of Arch Linux might be ARM support and Kevin Mihelich somehow joins the team.

Did I miss something? Do I expect too much? I don't know.

Thanks

Christopher Reimer

This really has nothing to do with the Arch community.

Arch ARM is its own project. Now, I'm not a TU or a developer, but in my view trying to complain to an upstream project when downstream doesn't do what a contributor wants reflects more badly on Arch's reputation.

Even if people on Arch cared, what could they even do about it? Are you expecting the Arch developers to somehow pull some imaginary authority over the Archlinux ARM project? That'd be even worse to Arch's reputation if they though they could just boss around forks of Arch.

The maintainer of a project has zero obligation to take on pull requests. Complaining to Archlinux users about it won't change it, especially when his response to your whining on his GitHub page was reasonable.

If you don't like it, feel free to fork Archlinux ARM. Nothing's stopping you. But stopping filling this list with nonsense and your personal problems with the developers of projects Arch has nothing to do with.

Yaro