[bug#68577] [PATCH 1/2] gnu: icecat: Improve inheritance.

["André Batista" <nandre@riseup.net>]

Hi Mark,

seg 22 jan 2024 às 01:09:21 (1705896561), mhw@netris.org enviou:
> Hi Clément,
> 
> I see now that in November, you added 'torbrowser', which inherits from
> 'icecat-minimal'.
> 
> > commit 756ba0429e84ee0f8ce30484439b78c00c61d286
> > Author: Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org>
> > Date:   Sun Nov 12 02:23:27 2023 +0100
> > 
> >     gnu: Add torbrowser.
> >     
> >     * gnu/packages/tor.scm (torbrowser): New variable.
> >     (torbrowser-assets): New variable.
> >     * gnu/packages/browser-extensions.scm (noscript): New variable.
> >     (noscript/icecat): New variable.
> >     
> >     Co-authored-by: André Batista <nandre@riseup.net>
> >     Change-Id: I73dc53905e4a028108bb34aae07e44256cf16c85
> 
> Did you consult me on this change?  I don't remember seeing anything
> about this in my mailbox.
> 
> This change concerns me, because it compels me to coordinate with you
> when making nontrivial IceCat updates.  As things stand now, it seems
> that the 'icecat' and 'torbrowser' packages must be updated together,
> in lock step.
> 
> Also, do 'torbrowser' and 'mullvad' both comply with the requirements of
> the GNU FSDG?  For example, do they support EME?  Do they steer the user
> to nonfree software, e.g. nonfree addons.

Considering I was cc'ed and part of the thread that led to that patch,
I'll consider myself invited to give a piece of my mind on your
comments.

First things first: when I sent the very first version of this patch, I
didn't use inheritance anywhere and it was actually suggested to me as
an improvement over what I had done[1]. I agreed to it and changed my
patch to inherit from Icecat. Way later, Clément followed on the same
reasoning and previous discussions on the thread. No one opposed it.

Looking back, it is true I should have probably known better and have you
cc'ed right from the start. My code was heavily based on / similar to
Icecat's package definition and so it made sense to avoid duplication.
I didn't know and did not care to look who were the contributors to
Icecat's definition. I see now that I was careless and that my behaviour
could be seen as disrespectful. No disrespect was intended, but I
certainly could have done better and I do apologize for my shortcomings.

Clément's rescue of that thread was a lesson to me in that they made an
effort to put forward all previous work and give clear attribution to
others[2]. I was certainly glad they cc'ed me and gave me attribution
even though I think it would have been legitimate if they had done
otherwise since their code was sufficiently distinct from mine.

Now, do you believe me when I say that there was no ill will towards you
or others?

I ask this because your last comments strike me on the opposite sense.
Risking to add insult to injury, but in the hopes of gaining your help,
I'd say that your comments appear to be assuming ill intention on our
part towards you and somewhat belittle you at the same time.

Why do you assume to be compelled to do anything if you were not even
cc'ed? As things stand, my assumption here is that the burden would be
on us to either ask you directly or to keep a close eye on any changes
done to Icecat. IMO, you certainly wouldn't be to blame if you changed
something on Icecat and torbrowser/mullvad/librewolf had some issue. We
would.

You have put a very good point in saying that it could be better for us
to disentangle those packages to avoid future surprises and lessen
maintainance burden, but the way you wrote it seemed to imply that we
were trying to forcefully push work upon you, with little evidence of
that being the case.

On the other hand, would it really be that much of added work if we were
to ask you to copy us when proposing some changes to Icecat? Would it be
presumptuous or forceful to ask that? In my view it wouldn't as it also
wouldn't be any obligation of yours to comply with it. If you said: "I'll
try to remeber, but cannot guarantee it, so do your part and keep an eye
on Icecat", that would've been fine to me at least.

More than that, it suprises me that after discovering these threads and
having a good amount of knowledge on building Icecat you've decided to
just lash out on us, instead of trying to be of help, reviewing the
proposed patches or letting we learn from our short-sightedness the hard
way.

Maybe you have too much on your plate already, maybe you thought we were
neglectful, irresponsible. Maybe past experiences made you say what you
said. Whatever it is, I feel your approach to it was a bit antagonistic
towards us for the reasons I've put above. You are not compelled to
answer me nor to give any thought to my feelings. You owe me nothing.
However, I know your help would be more valuable to guixen than mine,
were you willing and in a situation to do so. So please, if possible,
help us out. If not, please take care not to put others down or against
you. Even the ablest of programmers can benefit from the good will of
those of lesser abilities. At least that's what I believe and what I
wanted to communicate to you here in the hopes to have a net gain for us
all.

Kind regards,

1. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/2020-09/msg00261.html
2. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/2023-12/msg00669.html