On വെള്ളി 23 ഫെബ്രുവരി 2018 03:10 രാവിലെ, Philip Hands wrote: > On Thu, 22 Feb 2018, Wookey <[email protected]> wrote: > ... >> Anyway, Pirate - I suggest you ask about this on debian-devel where we >> can have a pulic discussion about policy and whether there is anything >> special about this case which makes it not suitable software for the >> archive. > > This would probably have been a much better approach than the course > that was taken.
I have taken similar issues to -devel before when there was no clear decision (for example if browserified javascript was DFSG free or not). But in this case, I explicitly asked if this was a final decision and I had got a reply in the affirmative. -devel discussion cannot overrule a decision by ftp masters. I thought ctte has powers to overrule ftp masters, but it seems I'm mistaken. It seems to a bit drastic step to have a GR as only remedy of disagreeing with an ftp master or another delegate. > The private discussion with Thorsten that was forwarded to the bug > seemed not to have been followed through to any sort of conclusion > before escalation to the TC. He was clear the ftp masters have already made a decision. quoting from that thread https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=881339#20 : > If this is the final/official/team decision of ftp masters, I rejected the package, so first of all it was my decision. Nobody else complained, so either nobody cared or everybody agreed with me. > I'd like to challenge this with ctte as Do whatever you think is best for you and your packages. :end quote: And I have also explained in my reply why the suggested path was not sustainable. "Because it is a question of policy and not just one package. I will have to do the same for multiple packages. Also it means I have to diverge from upstream build system and maintain it myself without support from upstream for a reason I am not convinced is worth the extra effort." > Also, the questions that Don was trying to explore about why there was a > need for the dependencies in the first place went unanswered. Presumably > because the whole thing is moot now that the package has been accepted. > > If that was the reason for not responding to Don, it would have been > polite to close the bug at that point. I thought Paolo's summary was enough to say this issue was resolved but the general problem still exist. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=881339#35 But individual ftp masters seems to have different opinion on the issue as node-rollup which depended on itself was accepted last week. > If on the other hand one is still expecting clarification on some > outstanding point (despite the fact that the original purpose of the bug > is now gone) then it would probably be wise to say so explicitly. I was hoping a general policy would come out of this bug, I agree it was better to have mentioned it explicitly. > In the absence of any of that, my only regret is that we didn't reject > the bug at the outset for not really having bothered with steps 1-3 here: > > https://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte > > I'm confident that we can all learn from this experience, and hope we > will do a better job next time. Yup, I may need to take up this issue again soon (I was thinking rollup would get rejected, but it was not) as it is a general problem. But since there is no outstanding issues right now, I won't open a discussion right now. > Cheers, Phil. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
