Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matti Bickel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Right, and packages that aren't aiming for stable eventually shouldn't
> really be in the tree at all.

Point taken. Tbh, i don't think allowing ion to remain in ~arch would be
a big deal though.

> A larger issue, though... It requires some way of pushing updates to a
> user who hasn't synced for >28 days.

The license explicitly makes a exception for a user who hasn't updated
or is without net connection, demanding the new version to be shown at
next install/upgrade cycle after the sync.

> If upstream release a new version that has a serious bug, Gentoo would
> be required to include it as the most visible package within 28 days,
> even if it is completely unusable.

In that case, i will provide a patch or pull the package, if upstream
disagrees. However, if it's a critical fix (security), i trust upstream
to release a new version asap. On that note: the QA warnings have a
patch with gentoo and will be included in the next upstream release. I
intend to handle any other fix the same way, and upstream has not spoken
out against this.

> If he doesn't want to hinder distributions, get him to fix his licence.
> The way it is now makes it impossible for distributions to do their job.

We all agree it's retarded. However, i can't change the way it is.

> > In general: i don't think forking is an option. I won't be
> > maintaining a fork myself to begin with.
> 
> Probably true, from a Gentoo perspective. If there's a significant ion
> userbase, someone else will do the work.

There's already someone doing the work for gentoo. Look at bug
#136077, which is, tbh, one of my main motivators to work on that
package. I just feel that letting (contributing) users down would be
kind of a shame.
-- 
Regards, Matti Bickel
Encrypted/Signed Email preferred

Attachment: pgp0YNlgl9W6K.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to