Le 15/08/2019 à 08:18, Pirate Praveen a écrit : > 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
Hi, I'm not enough fluent in English to understand all messages in these issues, but I think we could start by a mail on debian-devel or debian-private to launch a discussion.
