On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 05:36:13PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote: > On 09/09/2022 19:45, Sean Whitton wrote: > > Hello,
> > On Thu 08 Sep 2022 at 10:09PM -07, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > For the record I do not consider this an override requiring a > > > supermajority and would abide by a majority TC decision. > > Thank you for your input. The TC can just issue advice after reviewing > > the proposed changes, in this case. An alternative would be to word the > > resolution such that it counts as advice if we have a simple majority > > and an override if we have a supermajority. I'd prefer the former, but > > it would be good to hear from Helmut about it. > AIUI, Steve's objection is substantially that this is quite an invasive > change to make across our toolchain, and should be discussed on debian-devel > before just being implemented package-by-package (rather than any particular > objection to the approach). Is that correct? I think that's a fair characterization, yes. I support the goal of making it easier to bootstrap ports. I also don't even see a cleaner way to accomplish this than what's proposed. But I think there's a duty, when making distro-level changes, to have a project-level discussion about what's being proposed and why, and to get consensus on it, not just file a bunch of bug reports on individual packages. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
