[csw-maintainers] Dependencies on SUNW packages (was: newpkgs libslp1, openslp_devel)

[Peter FELECAN]

Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:

> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
>>>> Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:
>>>>...
>>> you are strongly against listening to our users?
>>> an odd sort of attitude.
>>
>> You're distorting things. Asking for an user base pool is always part of
>> your strategy of last defense: playing the advocate of the nebulous user
>> base.
>
> They become less "nebulous" if we actually ask them about their needs.
>
> Based on prior experience dealing with CSW user complaints, I know
> that some users will be unhappy if we needlessly clone sun packages.
> Ideally, you might accept my experience on this.
> But, presuming you wont, and you doubt that users would be unhappy, we
> should settle the issue by asking them.
>
> If on the other hand, you dont CARE if some users are unhappy, then
> that's a whole other problem.

This reminds me of market-droid arguments. In the end, however, the
"user" will have a non functional cups.

>> If an user has a strong opinion about our maintainceship the best
>> he has to do is to propose patches and/or to become a maintainer. Of
>> course, there is the users mailing list, the bug-tracking system that I
>> read and if the request is reasonable an action follows.
>
> Making a large policy principle change, not bothering to check if it
> makes users unhappy, and then reverting it down the road when users
> bother to complain, is a sign of a user-hostile development process.
> Not to mention an inefficient/chaotic process.
> That's not a good thing for opencsw, in my opinion.
>
> This is not a maintainer-internal-only issue. This is a directly
> user-facing issue, both in the specific slp case, but also in the much
> larger general policy case.

Personally I don't get this "user-facing" issue. Anyway, the question
for which I answered initially was if I agree with an OpenSLP
package. And it's still affirmative.
-- 
Peter