On 11/9/06, VMiklos <vmiklos@frugalware.org> wrote:

krix just told me that you have problems with our patch queue. may i ask you to:

1) discuss such problems here, not in private mails or on irc

The problem was brought up in private because I noticed it _as I was writing an email to him_.

2) mention what is the problem with our patch queue

I'm not sure what you mean by "patch queue". My issue is this from darcs.frugalware.org: "pacman Frugalware's .tar.bz2 based package manager with depende ..." Really... I mean, looking around it just appears that you guys are running a fork, and not "pacman". As a corollary, let's look at IceWeasel - it has the Firefox code, plus a few additional patches, they regularly sync with upstream, etc etc. It sounds alot like what you guys do with "Frugalware's package manager". I'm not trying to say anything bad by it. It's just customary to make a name change when running a fork (I even think the GPL requires it, but I may be mistaken). I mean, lets look at it from a user's point of view: "Oh hey, pacman, I used that on Arch! Wait... why doesn't that option work? What's going on? Where's the PKGBUILD for that? FrugalBuild, huh? foo-1.0-1-i686.fpm, what?". When a new name comes along, the user knows they're getting something different.

Ugh... fine... forget it. I'm not in the mood to argue about common courtesy.

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 22:38:49 +0100 VMiklos <vmiklos@frugalware.org> wrote:

btw if you really hate all non-arch-devel contributors like krix and me and you want us to fork pacman and deny us to contribute, then say, what should be the name of the fork?

you say "what the hell are you doing? you're violating gpl! stop contributing, fork!".

Just a bit of an outside comment, as I've never partaken in these discussions before; I don't think I've ever seen phrak say he hates non-arch-devel contributors OR that you should stop contributing. Also, as far as I can tell, forking doesn't immediately imply that contributions to the original tree have to stop. I know I, for one, really appreciate all your contributions. I'm positive phrak does too, beyond any doubt. I'm frankly just surprised to see so much vitrol on this mailing list - I had no clue of the animosity that went on here sometimes. :P -- Travis

On 11/9/06, Travis Willard <travisw@wmpub.ca> wrote:

Also, as far as I can tell, forking doesn't immediately imply that contributions to the original tree have to stop. I know I, for one, really appreciate all your contributions. I'm positive phrak does too, beyond any doubt.

That's 100% correct. This is not about contributions or anything like that. Forking does not imply that there is any animosity and that contributions are not welcome (i.e. the hardened-php guys are regular contributors back to php). As with before, my _ENTIRE_ issue can be summed up in one phrase: Give credit where credit is due. Until about a month ago, if someone were to look at the pacman code in the frugalware repos, it would appear that, based on comments, VMiklos created the entire thing and Judd, the one who created the original AND maintained it (alone, I might add) for something like 4 years was just a contributor. His name was stripped from files as if he didn't matter. Now, I've noticed that you distribute code directly from _your_ repo. Your repo indicates that it is "Frugalware's package manager" and there is not a single reference to "Arch" or "Archlinux" in there at all. If someone, who had never used Arch, came to Frugalware and looked through the code, it would appear that it was entirely created by you guys. It follows that "Frugalware's package manager" was created by Frugalware. My _only_ issue is that it seems, when looking at the repo, that there is no "partnership" here. From the outside it looks as though "this is frugalware's". Let's be clear - my issue is not with you, and not with your contributions, and not with anything you do. My issue is with the fact that we had to struggle to make it even appear that Judd (and therefore Arch) did anything with relation to this project, and now it appears as though there is still more-of-the-same. Now, let me explain the meaning of a "fork", since it seems to have a negative connotation to you guys.

From Wikipedia: In software engineering, a project fork or branch happens when a developer (or a group of them) takes code from a project and starts to develop independently of the rest. The term is also used more loosely to represent a similar branching of any work (for example, there are several forks of the English language Wikipedia).

With relation to other distros and software: Typically when one distributes a piece of software in "patched" form, the source is still pulled from the original location, and a patch is applied. In a vast majority of cases these patches are not functionality changes. You guys distribute source directly from your own repo, with functionality changes beyond the original codebase (things which were "develop[ed] independantly of the rest"). This is, by the wikipedia definition, a fork. Now. I am not trying to "force you" to fork, or any such nonsense. Forking is not a bad thing. It is not looked down upon (FreeBSD, NetBSD, DragonflyBSD, ...). I have no idea why there was such violent opposition to this. Forked projects typically cross-contribute. All I'm saying is that if there's not even a head nod to Archlinux, and no cross-collaboration, and many different code repositories all over the place, we're not really developing the same application anymore. I mean, right now, what happens if I removed the sha1sums code entirely because we don't use it? You would not remove anything and maintain a _different_ code base. Now, again. I need to reiterate that I am not emotional about this in the least. I am a bit saddened by the fact that it took so much hardship to get a slight acknowledgment for Judd and Arch in general, yes. But that is beside the point. The original email began in a hostile manner, and that is unnecessary.

On 11/9/06, VMiklos <vmiklos@frugalware.org> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 04:50:08PM -0600, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Now, I've noticed that you distribute code directly from _your_ repo. Your repo indicates that it is "Frugalware's package manager" and there is not a single reference to "Arch" or "Archlinux" in there at all.

hm. should pacman be distro-independent? in that case i would propose the following:

1) revert the changes like:

- Object holding data from a pacman package. + Object holding data from an ArchLinux package.

or

- """Creates a pacman package archive. + """Creates an ArchLinux package archive.

and so on

Can we please be civil? This is a back-handed request, and you know it is. What I am saying is that pacman was originally created by/for archlinux, not that it needs to be archlinux specific. Here are some examples of someone "Giving credit where credit is due": http://swtch.com/plan9port/ Check out the big section that says "acknowledgements". http://www.dragonflybsd.org/ See the "What is DragonFly BSD?" section. Seriously though, this is not like I'm asking you to give away money, or your left arm. It just bothers me when people that are part of the open source community act in a rather snatch-and-grab manner. It actually gets to me on a personal level, that people could be so against giving away some recognition. It is a free commodity and the only payment those in the open source community get. Actually... I don't care anymore. Feel free to not recognize people for their effort, and their work, and their contributions. Though I would like to draw a line from this to the quoted text below:

Judd always say "thank you guys" and you say "what the hell are you doing? you're violating gpl! stop contributing, fork!". see the difference.