Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Supporting this would be a huge policy violation, and not so merely as > a technicality.
How's that? I agree that this timely response clause will mean ion-3 will never go stable. That's the only thing i could envision to be a policy violation. > I suggest simply removing ion support from the main > tree, and sticking it in an overlay that comes with a big warning > telling users that they cannot expect any level of QA for those > packages. Care to expand on "no QA"? Tuomo fixed several QA warnings upstream (missing strlen, etc. includes) when i told him (there will be patches on our side until the next _rc). Additionally i'd like to point out the bit where he says he don't want this license to hinder distributions who just stick with upstream, which our policy explicitly recommends. That's why i'm trying to reach a compromise on those USE patches we apply. That's why the next build will tell ppl to bug me first. In general: i don't think forking is an option. I won't be maintaining a fork myself to begin with. If the general feeling is that ion is unacceptable in the tree, i'll mask it pending removal. -- Regards, Matti Bickel Encrypted/Signed Email preferred
pgpq2TuFCjjfL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
