On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 14 11:05:03 PM IST, Jonas Smedegaard
<jo...@jones.dk <mailto:jo...@jones.dk>> wrote:
Quoting Pirate Praveen (2019-08-14 19:08:47)
Hi ruby and js teams,
task_list project [1] provides both ruby and nodejs code from the
same
repo. Currently only ruby-task-list binary package is created. I
added
a new binary package node-deckar01-task-list for the nodejs code,
but
it was rejected by ftp masters [2].
Did you quote ftpmaster in full in that referenced post written by
you?
Yes.
They think we should not add a new binary package for this case and
instead should use a Provides field and a single binary package.
Do they? In what you reference above I only see Ftpmaster saying
"We've
talked about this." which can frankly mean a lot of different things.
I agree, that is why I asked them to state their position clearly,
first on irc, then on BTS. I even shared the BTS link on irc while we
were discussing.
This was before the second rejection. On second rejection, I again
asked them to reply on the bug. Do you have any other suggestion to get
an official statement from them?
I don't agree with their decision, but the only option I have to
challenege it is a GR.
You mean you have already tried the route of going to the technical
committee, and asking for the opinion of the DPL? Or am I missing
something making those options a no-go?
FTP masters made it clear that CTTE cannot override a delegate on irc.
I have seen confirmation from CTTE members for the same on another
issue about browserified JavaScript and dfsg. [1]
"You seem to be asking us to decide on DFSG compliance (in place of the
FTP
Team); but it's not at all clear that the constitution enables the TC to
override Delegates or decisions made by delegates (see §6.1)."
Same for DPL, a DPL cannot override a delegate.
Whichever options available, I think it would be helpful with the
opinions of stakeholders more clearly laid out - i.e. more than
quoting
ftpmasters for saying "We've talked about this." and you taking
responsibility for explaining what that's supposed to mean.
I agree, it is not a situation I like to be in as well. I asked
multiple times using multiple forums (email, irc and BTS) for ftp
master to officially state their policy, but none worked. With ftp
master refusing to even provide a statement or rationale for the
decision, it seems GR is the only option. I could still ask CTTE for
their opinion as it can help in case of a GR. But I wanted to first
check with the affected teams what they think before going to CTTE or
GR.
Thanks for your work on this,
[1] <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839570#40>
- Jonas
