Control: severity -1 normal Control: tags -1 + wontfix unreproducible Bastian Blank: > Hi Ximin > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 10:25:51PM +0000, Ximin Luo wrote: >> Control: severity -1 normal > > Please stop fiddling with severities. >
The maintainer of a package decides the severities and whether things are bugs or not. Neither have you provided a justification for "serious", it is not breaking anything. >> The more precise reason, as I have explained many times already, is because >> the cargo package manager supports crates having optional dependencies. It >> is not feasible to automatically merge optional-dependency-sets together >> because it results in dependency loops that would not otherwise exist. It is >> not economically feasible to manually merge these sets together either, >> because it is boring and time-consuming work, error-prone (hard to manually >> tell if you did or did not introduce a cycle) and of questionable benefit. > > Yes, I got that. And it seems cargo does not support recursive > dependencies. > > However Debian does not use cargo, it uses dpkg and apt. apt and dpkg > actually support recursive dependencies. Due to some downsides in > regards of the handling of maintainer scripts they are discuraged. But > as long as you don't have any of those, which all those packages don't > have, that's not much of a problem. > Manual cost, nobody is going to want to do this work. Do you want to do this work? >> I do not see any users complaining about this behaviour of our automatic >> tooling. We would be happy to work towards a patch on any Debian >> infrastructure to make these processes smoother. There is no reason why >> adding and removing empty metadata-only packages should require manual >> oversight, and if one is (and one should be) interested in automating the >> amount of manual work involved in maintaining Debian infrastructure, this is >> one obvious tedious task to automate away. > > Sylvestre as rust team member asked the ftp team, which is responsible > for the archive content, to change their handling of binary-NEW. So you > expect the ftp team to do the work you don't want to do. > > This bug is about members of the ftp team asking you to change your > solution to that problem. Re-iterating why it's not possible does not > help. > >> We are all volunteers, there is no "job security" here, why are we manually >> reviewing empty packages and we are we trying to conserve a process that >> involves manually reviewing empty packages? > > Because the ftp team is responsible for the content of the archive, > including package names etc. > Your proposed solution involves us doing more manual work, our suggested solution involves you doing less manual work. So, no thanks. X -- GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35 GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git
