Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:01:12 +0400
From: zooko <zooko@zooko.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Message-ID: <20130724160111.GF1009@zooko.com>
References: <CANEZrP2GvgZP_1z3EoSs3p+db7tZB6JfEVAewLpGE5eRpGgR3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<smumwpcg8sw.fsf@linuxpal.mit.edu>
	<CAAS2fgTxU4fb6n+fHPomOVDkEY+uoepd7QTPMxbxALYm2Sf3kg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130724023526.GD1009@zooko.com>
	<CAAS2fgQJ6B5q4xmB-UfC=jeiYDkqxK71oTvtp7MqHXRn43duTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP00vN0TFsxnpSO3RoC_aiAbGS9LG9KXM1+KqWRv8YsJXg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP00vN0TFsxnpSO3RoC_aiAbGS9LG9KXM1+KqWRv8YsJXg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Greg Troxel <gdt@work.lexort.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Linux packaging letter
Precedence: list

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:28:16AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Yeah, if anyone wants to make the letter more digestable please do propose
> an alternative, although by this point it's probably not worth it as people
> have already signed.

Okay, here's my attempt:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m3wyBIjqwPQ3wxVT7P_wJtdWt9a9RXvt9NV7rggLAOs/edit#

Please feel free to use any or all of it as you see fit.

> FWIW, Gregory is right that my original draft was much more brusque. The
> pain in the packaging relationship travels both ways. I have in the past
> wasted a lot of time due to bogus packaging applied by non-expert packagers
> that broke things. In fact the project I was a part of adopted a policy of
> automatically closing bug reports from people who were using distributor
> packages (any distro) because the quality was so inconsistent and so many
> subtle bugs were introduced.
> 
> If packagers hear upstreams cry about packaging a lot, I think you should
> keep an open mind that some of them probably know what they're talking
> about. We really shouldn't have to beg and cajole here. Saying "we have our
> reasons and we want you to stop" should be enough.

Yes, I know what you mean.

Regards,

Zooko