From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4B771657.9070602@domain.hid> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:15:03 +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> <4B76F154.5090101@domain.hid> <4B76F40A.8070807@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4B76F40A.8070807@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: >> 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? >> > > We can only ask him kindly to remember xenomai@xenomai.org. This looks pointless, as we already had that argument in may 2008. -- Gilles.