Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 06:35:28 +0400
From: zooko <zooko@zooko.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130724023526.GD1009@zooko.com>
References: <CANEZrP2GvgZP_1z3EoSs3p+db7tZB6JfEVAewLpGE5eRpGgR3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<smumwpcg8sw.fsf@linuxpal.mit.edu>
	<CAAS2fgTxU4fb6n+fHPomOVDkEY+uoepd7QTPMxbxALYm2Sf3kg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTxU4fb6n+fHPomOVDkEY+uoepd7QTPMxbxALYm2Sf3kg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Greg Troxel <gdt@work.lexort.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Linux packaging letter
Precedence: list

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