Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Package: tech-ctte > > In #919622 and the associated debian-devel thread, > "Conflict over /usr/bin/dune" > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/01/msg00227.html > the file conflict over /usr/bin/dune was discussed. > > The rough consensus of the debian-devel thread was that /usr/bin/dune > ought definitely not to be taken by the ocaml build system, and that > the best claim on it was the C++ library which already provides a > number of /usr/bin/dune?* binaries. > > Instead, the maintainers of the ocaml package reassigned the bug > against their `dune' package to the whitedune package, which > previously provided /usr/bin/dune as a compat symlink. > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919622 > > They used the phrase > "As discussed on debian-devel" > which is very misleading because it makes it sounds like there was a > consensus for this course of action, whereas the opposite is true. > > Apparently as a result of this there was an NMU of `whitedune' to drop > the symlink /usr/bin/dune. > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919622#58 >
Per article 6.6 of the constitution (which I know you're aware of ;)), have efforts to resolve this via consensus really failed? Except under extraordinary circumstances, I would expect whitedune maintainers to NAK the NMU if they disagreed with this resolution. I don't think the wording of the NMU changelog alone is enough to involve the TC, nor do I think the social appropriateness of this NMU is really within our purview. d