Bug#760414: [ola] Source package includes non-source files without corresponding source
Hi Ben, Sorry for the late reply; I've been fighting a viral infection for the past week+ On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:21:53AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Control: reassign -1 src:ola > Control: retitle -1 ola: Source package includes non-source files without > corresponding source > > On 14-Feb-2017, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > If the FTP team explains to me why that is a DFSG violation, I'll > > add the "missing" files. If they don't, things will remain as they > > are (and if they don't but do change severities, I'll ask the TC to > > rule). > > This surprises me. Do you mean to imply that only the FTP Master team > can bring reasoned argument to convince you? At this point in the release, yes. > That you would reject such reasons if they came from different people? I would not reject them if they were well presented. > I ask because I am confident you're amenable to rational discussion > about bugs, regardless of who presents those reasons. I hope that's > right. That's certainly right. -- < ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules, and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too. -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12
Bug#760414: [ola] Source package includes non-source files without corresponding source
Control: reassign -1 src:ola Control: retitle -1 ola: Source package includes non-source files without corresponding source On 14-Feb-2017, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > control: severity -1 wishlist I'm sorry to see the ping-pong you refer to, Wouter. I think the issue has become muddled; I hope my edits to the bug report metadata can help. The title was IMO needlessly accusatory, and somewhat inaccurate. I've addressed that. The issue isn't about the binary package, but about the source package; I've changed that too. As for the severity, Wouter is right that the disagreement about the correct value means we should stop playing with that value while discussion continues. > Just to reiterate, this is my position: […] Thanks for laying it out succintly, Wouter. > If the FTP team explains to me why that is a DFSG violation, I'll > add the "missing" files. If they don't, things will remain as they > are (and if they don't but do change severities, I'll ask the TC to > rule). This surprises me. Do you mean to imply that only the FTP Master team can bring reasoned argument to convince you? That you would reject such reasons if they came from different people? I ask because I am confident you're amenable to rational discussion about bugs, regardless of who presents those reasons. I hope that's right. -- \ “When I was born I was so surprised I couldn't talk for a year | `\and a half.” —Gracie Allen | _o__) | Ben Finney signature.asc Description: PGP signature
