On 22 December 2014 at 01:26, Björn Persson <Bjorn@rombobjörn.se> wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > >Uhm no. You seem to be wanting a fight over something, and I have no > >mood to engage. I hope you have a more pleasant holidays than what > >your tone indicates you are currently having. > > The idea of making two calls to open a port seemed like a bad design to > me, so I proposed what seemed like a better design. I received a reply > that rejected my proposal for a very vague technical reason and an > incomplete political reason, so I asked for clarification of both > reasons. I honestly can't see how any of that would come across as > picking a fight. > > In general I wish people could discuss the technical merits of proposed > solutions without turning the discussions into personal fights all the > time. > > I would love that also. But as far as I can tell you started the personal fight. It is very hard to believe you wanted a technical discussion with sentence structure like: So you think that countless other upstreams would feel compelled to accept the patches to always open ports twice, because they want their software to work on Fedora, but GlibC is important enough to be able to refuse without risk of being dropped from Fedora? Or maybe that GlibC can refuse because it's a library and can push the problem up to the programs? You barrel over my attempt at conversation by giving me idiotic options to try and defend that I never said in the first place.. To try and technically answer your strawmen questions: 1) I do not feel that countless programs will or want to accept patches to open ports twice. I expect them to actually open a port once and if they want to work with firewalld or some other firewall daemon signal on dbus that they are looking to have a port open using a predefined and open protocol. The port will be open like it always was and the firewall will be closed if they don't use it, and possibly open if they do (depending on the top level policy of whatever firewall management program is there). 2) glibc is important enough to be able to refuse without risk of being dropped from Fedora. Just like the kernel is important enough to regularly refuse things without risk of being dropped from Fedora. 3) glibc is meant to work on multiple OS's and distributions. Fedora and even Red Hat are not important enough to force through a change that isn't in the interests of other distributions. Which is where the vague politics comes up. This sort of change would require working with other distributions, other OS's and other organizations to get their consensus on how it should work. That takes a long amount of meetings, talking with people, showing them why it would be worthwhile, figuring out all the corner cases and seeing if they are fixable, etc. And it would see if it breaks various 'promises' like POSIX compliance and such that the glibc team work actively to keep. -- > Björn Persson > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > -- Stephen J Smoogen.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
