Joshua Kinard: > On 06/16/2014 21:47, hasufell wrote: >> Joshua Kinard: >>> >>> How big of a patch would this change require to the existing crossdev >>> ebuild? >>> >> >> Probably quite trivial, but since vapier said "bs" to that proposal >> (translates to "bullshit" I guess) I'll not put any work into that. >> >> So there we go. If you are cool, you can just say "bs", vanish and leave >> stable arch in a broken state. >> >> Not even QA cares. Great. I'll try to get it on the next council agenda >> then. > > So you just take your ball and go home then? That's not how it works. > > Create the patch, and file it as a bug. Then, raise awareness on the ML. > That's how development works. If your patch is reasonable and doesn't break > things, odds are likely it'll push the other members of toolchain to > consider incorporating it. > > Equally using the Council as a hammer all the time doesn't work in the > long-term, either. If you whip a patch up, however, then not only could you > raise this at the next council meeting, but additionally state you've gone > that extra mile and created a patch that addresses the problem. > > That's taking the ball and putting it into the goal. >
No, that's not how opensource works. You don't work on things after "upstream" said "not interested". https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504824
