Hi, (I shortened CC list)
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 03:22:18AM +1100, Harshula wrote: > Hi Osamu, > > First and foremost I have updated the m17n-docs source package and I've > uploaded it to: > http://sinhala.sourceforge.net/files/m17n/ > > There is one Lintian error with the manpages that I'm waiting to hear > from upstream about before I decide how to fix it. Good. > On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 23:53 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This bug 466922 for m17n-db is blocking other packages such as scim-uim > > to build. > > Why? What's the relationship between scim-uim and m17n-db? scim-uim depends on one of the uim then it pulls in m17n-db. Pbuilder did not like broken package to be installed. (This may be minor issue. I will check. I have some second thought) > > I think we should attack this situation in 2 steps. > > > > Let's review situation: > > > > There was bug #465661 for m17n-db claiming binary-without-manpage > > usr/bin/m17n-db. This was based on policy 12.1 which states: > > > > Each program, utility, and function should have an associated manual > > page included in the same package. > > > > It is mere "should" whereas the basis of bug 466922 was policy 2.2.1 > > which states: > > > > In addition, the packages in main > > * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or > > execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", > > "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main > > package), > > > > Yes, this is serious policy bug. > > > > First, we should avoid serious bug if possible even with minor > > shortcoming. The correct thing to do is: > > > > 1. File bug to get unreasonable move to non-free (already done) > > 2. Just "Suggest" m17n-doc for now. (Once m17n-doc is back in main > > change it to depends if you think that is right thing). Really, it is > > only policy with "should" so "Suggest" may be enough. (at least to me. > > But I may be wrong) > > Dicussion on debian-devel: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/02/msg00636.html Quick look tells me Ian (ex-DPL) said: I think the point of policy is to ensure the manpage exists, not to require that it be installed. I think Suggests is the right dependency. There is nothing wrong with installing a package without its documentation. This is quite conclusive. > > I agree moving m17n-doc to main is right thing. But the order of action > > should be carefully thought out. Please remove m17n-doc from depends > > now and set suggest. > > Since I have updated the m17n-doc source package, would it be better to > upload that, even with the minor Lintian manpage errors? Yes. You are killing big problem. Close big bug and file new minor bug. (I did not check what exactly was problem, But manpage error warning are not that fatal as current situation.) > > Iwai-san, are you still active? Omote-san who seemed to uploaded his > > package, can you comment? This package seems practically orphaned. > > > > Considering 434044, Harshula should hijack m17n-doc package unless we > > get response from them in a week or so. I will be happy to see m17n-db > > maintainer taking charge of all related packages. > > I already announced ITH back in November 2007: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/11/msg00440.html Good. Let's do it now. > > I was quite surprized by the non-free move. GFDL without invariant > > section seems to be OK to be in main. > > I suspect it happened before the 2006 Debian vote on the issue. I heard but that was not right mov then either. > > Osamu > > > > PS: The upload to main may need to happen after requesting removal of > > current non-free one. > > What's the procedure for that? I do not know exactly. Ask debian-mentor for this sitution. (I have not encountered such case yet.) Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
