[arch-dev-public] Automating package conflict resolution whenever possible (xorgproto/libxfont dependency conflict)

Baptiste Jonglez baptiste at bitsofnetworks.org
Wed Feb 14 09:19:15 UTC 2018

On 13-02-18, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 02/13/2018 06:56 PM, Baptiste Jonglez wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Eli and I disagree about how dependency conflicts should be handled when
> > packaging.  This was prompted by the libxfont dependency conflict arising
> > from recent xorgproto changes [1].
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > [1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57495
> Is there a reason you took a private disagreement to the public mailing
> lists:
> - regarding which you have confused me for the primary person
>   disagreeing with you
> - when in fact there are three people who directly disagree with you on
>   that very issue, as I told you in that private discussion
> - regarding which this public post seems to essentially exist in order
>   to, I dunno, shame me into responding in view of the world at large,
>   again despite my not being the only or indeed the primary person who
>   you are actually disagreeing with?

I'm sorry if you feel offended, but I'm not sure what I am shaming you
into exactly.

- I initially thought I had a disagreement with you, because you were the
  one I saw closing bug reports about the issue.  This is why I emailed
  you directly.

- your answer made it clear that we *do* disagree, but you also said that
  your position is shared with other members of the community: what you
  called "a longstanding tradition of not considering these type of issues
  to be valid bugs", and the fact that Doug and arojas also closed bug
  reports about the issue.

- so, I decided to start a public discussion about the issue, with the
  starting point that we *do* indeed disagree about it.

Quite frankly, the packaging issue itself is minor, I was just surprised
of the way it was handled: spending time to close several bug reports
about the issue and telling people that they are stupid [2], instead of just
fixing the issue in the first place.  It goes against (my idea of) common

Now, the point of this email on arch-dev-public was to discuss the
packaging issue and whether it is a policy *not* to fix these kind of
issues.  I'm fine either way, I'll know for next time.


[2] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57393#comment166572

> I would like to register my formal objection to your treating this as a
> personal disagreement between the two of us. I explained why this was
> not an "Eli Schwartz thinks so" thing in that private email -- you
> disliked my explanation and asked for more proof, while *simultanously*
> CC'ing arch-dev-public with claims about how I "and possibly others"
> disagree with you.
> You did not give me a chance to respond to your new question before
> CC'ing arch-dev-public.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20180214/38c84e78/attachment.asc>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list