Comment by steveklabnik
5 years ago
He says early in the thread:
> If users experiencing issues with the ambee library in this package, they will knock on my door. And I'm not willing to support that or accept that burden. Especially as I don't see a good repacking reason in this case.
I mean, yes, but then when the NixOS folks offer something like:
requiring users to explicitly set config.ambee.acceptThatThisPackageIsNotSupportedByUpstreamDevelopersAndIWillGoToNixpkgsToReportAnyIssues = true to be able to install the package, or they would get an error that would make it even clearer. Would that be enough for you?
the author replies just:
I feel like I'm starting to be on repeat now. Please don't add any of my stuff to this project.
The author may well have plausible reasons but it was obvious from the overly curt tone he wasn't going to treat the discussion constructively
Perhaps forking 'fully', and rebranding the fork, could be another option. That might help redirect the support burden downstream.
But when suggested alternatives to resolve that issue, he simply ignores it and states “sorry, this is my wish” with no further clarification.
The whole chain is a guessing game trying to figure out what the real issue is (and in the end, it’s not even found — the author randomly finds an alternative he likes)
That's an extremely valid concern, but one that seems easily addressed via an FAQ.
"I'm running into some issues with ambee..."
"First, make sure you aren't using the version in nixpkgs. I do not support that distribution and cannot help you."
So ye olde "I don't like distros packaging my FOSS project because they won't do it exactly the way I want."