On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 19:49:26 -0500 William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:41:59AM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote: > > On 13 April 2013 22:30, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:27:24PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > >> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:43:14 -0500 > > >> William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> > this eclass is an alternative to systemd.eclass, and maintains > > >> > full compatibility with it; however, it expands it so that it can query > > >> > pkgconfig for the directory paths. It returns the same default paths as > > >> > systemd.eclass if there is an error with pkgconfig. > > >> > > >> Alternative? So now developers decide whether they want support systemd > > >> A or systemd B? And we fork packages so that users can have matching > > >> set of packages? > > >> > > >> If you listened, you would know that the only reason I didn't apply > > >> your patches to the eclass was that nothing used them. If you really > > >> want to commit your quasi-fork, I will update the eclass. You > > >> don't really have to play silly games like this. > > > > > > Ok, that is the better aproach anyway, go ahead and update the eclass. > > > > > > Thanks much. :-) > > > > > > William > > > > > > > Am I the only one wondering why you didn't discuss this before you > > submit a new eclass for review? > > I'm answering this on the list here for completeness only. I feel like a > question here calls for a response. > > This started with this thread [1], where I proposed a patch to the > systemd eclass. That patch was rejected as you can see with no real > explanation from mgorny. For completeness -- there was no real explanation because I explained why I don't want to change that in the previous thread you started, and you nevertheless ignored me and submitted the patch. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
