On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:15:53PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 02/03/2014 03:41 PM, drago01 wrote:
Having an active upstream is what matters ( again irrelevant if that
upstream is within the distribution itself or outside it )
Wrong. Having a working component is what matters. It is completely
irrelevant who makes that happen.
Our contribution as an downstream distribution is to delivering that
feed back we receive as well as package maintaining and integrating
the component or stacks of components downstream here with us (
which makes us not demanding anything for upstream ) is that
successful beneficial relationship.
This is purely your opinion. I disagree totally.
So if an upstream maintainer is in any other role then "consultant"
within distribution(s) it becomes no longer successful beneficial
relationship for anybody it becomes a distraction for everybody.
This is just your illusional "premise" reversed. It does not relate to
reality any more than the premise itself.
Image how further the software center work could have gone if
Richard would not have been distracted having to integrate it and
dealing with ( to put it mildly ) less then perfectly maintained
component with us ( as opposed to him be in the role of an
consultant and say this is whats happening and this is what I would
like you as an downstream distribution to do and then just continue
work on upstream )
That he had to do it himself means there was noone sufficiently
interested to help. Why do you think that would have been otherwise had
he not participated at all?
image how not so far or not so successful systemd
had become if for example Kay and or Lennart would have been
spending all their time migrating legacy sysv initscript to native
systemd units in downstream distributions.
But they are not maintainers of all these packages in all these distros.
So this argument is off topic.
D.