From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4B76F154.5090101@domain.hid> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:37:08 +0100 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4B6E8167.6010907@domain.hid> <4B76B7F2.2050303@domain.hid> <4B76C045.2070602@domain.hid> <4B76C471.90904@domain.hid> <4B76EFD8.1030102@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4B76EFD8.1030102@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Xenomai in Debian List-Id: Xenomai life and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: xenomai-core Jan Kiszka wrote: > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> Roland Stigge wrote: >>> Hi Gilles, >>> >>> first - I'm sorry if you sometimes feel offended by my work on Xenomai >>> in Debian. I understand that you are very much connected to your project >>> and want to have it working perfectly everywhere. >>> >>> Unfortunately, my time to work on this is limited and the last uploads >>> were work in progress - to provide latest Xenomai in Debian. Further >>> work on it was planned for this weekend. >>> >>> But please also understand that Debian developers will possibly >>> prioritize work on upstream packages where they feel their work is >>> appreciated. So please think about your tone before sending email and >>> driving people away from Xenomai. >> What matters for me is Xenomai users, not the Debian package maintainer. >> I am almost thinking that I would prefer Xenomai not having an >> "official" Debian package which has been shipping for monthes with buggy >> adeos patches and lagging behind upstream development. > > Hey guys, this leads to nothing. > > I agree with Gilles that a distro package that could appear to users > like it's as mature as upstream while it isn't does not help anyone. But > not all the work here is paid, and resources will remain limited. So > Roland's remark is valid as well that not everything can be done > instantly in The Perfect Way. > > The only way to resolve this without killing the idea of ready-to-use > Xenomai package is to openly discuss the problems of both sides and try > to find optimal solutions. I also bet Roland would be happy about > patch-based discussions - just like we are for upstream. Just let the > discussion take place here on this list, in an objective manner, and > ideally before things may show up in releases etc. As I already said, I think the proper place to discuss all this is on the Xenomai mailing list. I have no problem renaming sigtest, at all, I do not even require a patch to do it. The point is that we did not even knew that it generated a conflict. And for me this is the real problem, I am all for helping Roland generating good packages, but if he does not want to talk to us, what choice do we have? -- Gilles.