From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4B76F40A.8070807@domain.hid> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:48:42 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka 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> <4B76F154.5090101@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4B76F154.5090101@domain.hid> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigF17B496FAC33CC3D173160C4" Sender: jan.kiszka@domain.hid Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Xenomai in Debian List-Id: Xenomai life and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: xenomai-core This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigF17B496FAC33CC3D173160C4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>> Roland Stigge wrote: >>>> Hi Gilles, >>>> >>>> first - I'm sorry if you sometimes feel offended by my work on Xenom= ai=20 >>>> in Debian. I understand that you are very much connected to your pro= ject=20 >>>> and want to have it working perfectly everywhere. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, my time to work on this is limited and the last uploa= ds=20 >>>> were work in progress - to provide latest Xenomai in Debian. Further= =20 >>>> work on it was planned for this weekend. >>>> >>>> But please also understand that Debian developers will possibly=20 >>>> prioritize work on upstream packages where they feel their work is=20 >>>> appreciated. So please think about your tone before sending email an= d=20 >>>> driving people away from Xenomai. >>> What matters for me is Xenomai users, not the Debian package maintain= er. >>> I am almost thinking that I would prefer Xenomai not having an >>> "official" Debian package which has been shipping for monthes with bu= ggy >>> 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. B= ut >> 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 tr= y >> 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. >=20 > 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 no= t > want to talk to us, what choice do we have? >=20 We can only ask him kindly to remember xenomai@xenomai.org. Jan --------------enigF17B496FAC33CC3D173160C4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkt29AoACgkQitSsb3rl5xSLcgCgz9jI0mtzl2bAaoGOKqnIc/AU JsMAnj8L7ow8+CB4jXcSuWIKr577l45D =8Lq6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigF17B496FAC33CC3D173160C4--