X-Original-To: alpine-infra@lists.alpinelinux.org
Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mx1.tetrasec.net [74.117.190.25])
	by lists.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C10495C4F0D
	for <alpine-infra@lists.alpinelinux.org>; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:01:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mail.local [127.0.0.1])
	by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556439E3089;
	Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:01:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw (15.63.200.37.customer.cdi.no [37.200.63.15])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: n@tanael.org)
	by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B2179E2E97;
	Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:01:06 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:01:01 +0100
From: Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>
To: William Pitcock <nenolod@dereferenced.org>
Cc: Jakub Jirutka <jakub@jirutka.cz>, Oliver Smith
 <ollieparanoid@bitmessage.ch>, alpine-infra@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: Building unofficial packages on Alpine build infrastructure?
Message-ID: <20171031120101.031a1375@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
In-Reply-To: <CA+T2pCHdC4ZrpZ4FPQm6DQa9m6XMA7a6FFTKVEi19eb1CH8hDw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <514355cb-b6f1-c220-99fc-b096dcb0b693@bitmessage.ch>
	<CA+T2pCFsduoT_cX5K=5Ngv-B0Ko2-0iViSS0VPo=WC9FykhJQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55293c01-cd18-19c0-1380-b0ce96a146d0@bitmessage.ch>
	<E85E0CFC-6981-4882-95F4-3F14168E7B78@jirutka.cz>
	<CA+T2pCHdC4ZrpZ4FPQm6DQa9m6XMA7a6FFTKVEi19eb1CH8hDw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.0-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-alpine-linux-musl)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 21:36:44 -0500
William Pitcock <nenolod@dereferenced.org> wrote:

> My doubt is in providing technical resources and personnel to a
> project that may very well not be around 6 months from now.
> Doing hacks to quickly implement infrastructure for a project that has
> an unknown future (due to not actually being usable for daily use on
> any device) takes away opportunity to properly solve these problems.
> Surely you would agree with this?
> 
> To be clear, I don't really have any position on pmOS either way.
> I just doubt the longterm viability of the project given what I have
> seen so far.
> And since I doubt the longterm viability, I am not in favour of giving
> them special treatment.
> Once rootbld and the other infrastructure changes are done *and the
> infra team evaluates their requirements* then there is maybe something
> we can do.
> Which is what I said about it to begin with -- at no time did I imply
> we could do that immediately.

I think if we try help them they might still be around 6 months from
now. But in any case, I think we should at least try help. Having two
different downstream derivatives are better than one.

But lets bring this up again after the v3.7 release.

-nc