On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 04:16:32PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes: > > > Based on Ian's last response, I think the ballot has two options plus > > further discussion, since I'm quite sure that we're not going to outlaw > > dh: > > > A. debian/rules is not required to be a makefile, only to implement the > > same interface as a debian/rules file implemented as a makefile > > (including handling of arguments and exit status). Debian Policy > > should be updated to change the requirement to a recommendation, and > > new versions of the leave package should be permitted to be uploaded to > > the archive without changing debian/rules to be a makefile. > > > B. The Technical Committee affirms the Debian Policy requirement that > > debian/rules must be a makefile. All packages in the archive, > > including leave, are required to follow this requirement. This > > makefile may, as is common practice, delegate implementation of its > > targets to a script. > > > C. Further discussion. > > At the conclusion of our standard voting period of one week, there were > three votes of BAC and one vote of AB. (One additional vote of BAC came > in after the voting period had ended.) > > As this is, depending on how one looks at it, a conflict between a > maintainer and ftp-master policy or a maintainer and the current > requirements of Debian Policy, I don't believe the 3:1 super-majority > requirement applies here and the ballot should be decided by simple > majority rule.
Both text clearly talk about policy, and not about overriding ftp-master. Overriding ftp-master would be overriding a delegate of the DPL, and I don't think you have that power to begin with. B isn't overriding anything, so clearly doesn't need a 3:1 majority requirement, and can win with a simple majority. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
