From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1V1pKL-0000Cg-Fa for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:01:21 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from 216-155-145-223.cinfuserver.com ([216.155.145.223] helo=zooko.com) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1V1pKJ-0000FK-PX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:01:21 +0000 Received: by zooko.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 722271F30055; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 06:35:28 +0400 (MSK) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 06:35:28 +0400 From: zooko To: Gregory Maxwell Message-ID: <20130724023526.GD1009@zooko.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP TVD_RCVD_IP 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS X-Headers-End: 1V1pKJ-0000FK-PX Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net, Greg Troxel Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Linux packaging letter X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:01:21 -0000 Folks: With all due respect, I think the letter as I see it at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1naenR6N6fMWSpHM0f4jpQhYBEkCEQDbLBs8AXC19Y-o/edit#heading=h.i7tz3gqh65mi should be changed before being shown to package maintainers. I think some package maintainers might perceive this version of the letter as high-handed -- telling someone else how to do their job -- and they might not notice the actual facts included in the letter explaining why Bitcoin really *is* different than a lot of software. You should understand that without a careful read, this letter sounds much like a cry that packagers have heard from hundreds of other authors who say things to the effect that "my software is different and more important and packager maintainers have to do things my way". Why not solicit the cooperation of a few package maintainers and write a joint letter with them signing on? Instead of it being a one-sided lecture from Bitcoin devs to packagers, it would be a shared statement *and* packagers, and it would be phrased in language that would make it instantly clear to other packagers that this isn't just another whine from ignorant devs. If you're interested in that, there are lots of packagers who would be happy to help. Greg Troxel (pkgsrc) is one, who has already posted to this thread. I'd be happy to invite the ones that I've worked with to package the software that I am a dev on -- Tahoe-LAFS. What I'm proposing is that we contact some packagers and say "Here's this rough draft, and we'd like you to suggest edits that would make it into the kind of letter that you'd sign your name to.". At the very least, we'd learn something from the ensuing conversation. Regards, Zooko