[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue

Tue Oct 30 10:38:43 CET 2012

Wolfgang Bornath <molch.b at googlemail.com> writes:
+
+> 2012/10/30 Olivier Blin <mageia at blino.org>:
+>> Wolfgang Bornath <molch.b at googlemail.com> writes:
+>>
+>>> There has been a wide consensus for the solution to put it into
+>>> tainted as has been said in this thread as well.
+>>
+>> The consensus was maybe not so clear then.
+>
+> Maybe not so clear for those whose opinion differs from the consensus,
+> understandable. I did not write about a consensus as first one, it has
+> been written repeatedly by others.
+
+My opinion does not differ from the "consensus":
+- I don't have a strong opinion on this
+- I just did not see a clear consensus after carefully re-reading all
+  the thread (from the beginning of the month) yesterday
+
+>>> Sorry if it is too offending for one or the other if I call this
+>>> procedure "ridiculous".
+>>
+>> Where do you see a procedure here? :-)
+>> Offer one if you think that's needed.
+>
+> Ah, in case you have missed all those mails in the devel list:
+> 1. The issue was brought to the attention of the people, including the
+> developers.
+> 2. The issue has been discussed at length including mantra-like repetitions.
+> 3. Several people suggested the same solution (we did not start a poll
+> but to me it looked like a large part of the participants of the
+> discussion). If I am wrong here then all others who saw it like me are
+> wrong as well
+> 4. All it needed now was action according to that consensus.
+>
+> This is what I call a procedure and how issues have been treated many
+> times. May be your definition is different.
+
+What I call a procedure is a documented way of doing things before we
+actually do them :-)
+
+> After the discussion reached this state everybody waited for action,
+> which may have ver well have been delayed because of other more
+> important work. That was the subject/contents of the opening mail and
+> first answers of this thread. Until somebody started to open the
+> discussion again.
+>
+> Another option would have been to bring the issue to the council after
+> the first discussion ended but I haven't yet read any mail about such
+> a move during the months since then.
+> Is that what you were waiting for?
+
+If things don't move on, yes, we should bring this to the council.
+
+>> It could be up to the council or board to chose the lesser evil between:
+>> - picking tainted for non-free + tainted packages like faac, and thus
+>>   forbid mirroring tainted packages that are only free-software
+>>   (but maybe that's the hypothetical 'selective mirror admin' from Guillaume)
+>
+> yes, you've been calling those existing mirror maintainers
+> "hypothetical" before. Very good argument. If I don't like something I
+> just pretend it isn't there.
+
+This looks like a misunderstanding, again.
+The hypothetical selective mirror admin was about an admin selectively
+picking sub-trees (free, non-free) of PLF.
+Do you know of any admin doing this?
+
+-- 
+Olivier Blin - blino
+