Your message dated Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:47:56 -0600
with message-id <20190225174755.gd7...@mosca.iiec.unam.mx>
and subject line Re: Bug#919951: ocaml builder must not be called `dune' or
provide /usr/bin/dune
has caused the Debian Bug report #919951,
regarding ocaml builder must not be called `dune' or provide /usr/bin/dune
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
919951: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919951
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
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
The maintainers of the ocaml `dune' have now uploaded `dune' (the
ocaml package) with /usr/bin/dune and Breaks+Replaces to claim the
file.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919622#99
Meanwhile there seems to have been no contact with the maintainers of
the C++ library which is the only hit on Wikipedia for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(software)
(Amazingly, this is still true at the time of writing even though
I referred to this fact in the debian-devel thread.)
Note that this ocaml tool `dune' was previously known as `jbuilder'.
It has nothing to do with Java AIUI. No-one has suggested a plausible
charitable explanation for why the ocaml upstream made such
egregiously bad naming mistakes twice in succession.
Additionally the binary package name `dune' for the ocaml tool is bad,
too.
Please would the Technical Committee:
* Declare that no-one is allowed the name /usr/bin/dune other than
the C++ library dune-common or its friends.
* Declare that no-one is allowed the binary package name
/usr/bin/dune other than the C++ library dune-common
or its friends.
* Declare that the ocaml build system should choose a new source
package name and use it henceforth.
I am about to file an RC bug against the `dune' package, blocked by
this one.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bug report #916468 on the ownership of the /usr/bin/dune command was
opened after a quite short discussion in debian-devel¹.
¹ https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/12/msg00190.html
The Technical Committee has evaluated the situation that led to the
opening of said bug as well as this one (#919951), and in accordance
with the Procedure for the Technical Committee, 6.3.6 of the Debian
Constitution:
The Technical Committee does not make a technical decision until
efforts to resolve it via consensus have been tried and failed,
unless it has been asked to make a decision by the person or body
who would normally be responsible for it.
Together with a review of the resolution of #916468 and the last
messages in #919951, the Technical Committee recognizes the situation
as happily solved thanks to the direct interactions and good will of
both the maintainers and upstream authors of the affected packages.
Thus, not having a controversy to decide upon anymore, we have decided
to mark this bug as Closed. Furthermore, the Technical Committee
considers that, given the very short discussion the involved parties
had before raising this issue to the Committee, we should remind our
fellow Developers that any decision reached by the Technical Committee
can be seen to some as an imposition. We urge everybody to always seek
a decision by a serious, calm discussion before escalating issues.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
