Hello Emilio, On Thu 11 May 2023 at 12:30PM +02, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > I think you're conflating two independent things. > > If you override the dpkg maintainer to remove that warning that occurs on > derivatives, then anyone could NMU dpkg and the maintainer wouldn't introduce > it back, effectively removing the warning from "dpkg upstream". > > OTOH if the dpkg maintainer switches to non-native packages, anyone could NMU > it adding the change as a patch, however the maintainer will just NACK the NMU > before or after it happens. > > So I don't see a problem with dpkg being native, just like e.g. apt is, and > that won't magically solve the issue at hand. I don't think the TC has or should have any authority over dpkg upstream, but with dpkg being a native package, any implementation of our decision for the Debian archive is also implemented for dpkg upstream. And it might be that the dpkg developers would be against the TC override solely or mostly because of this fact. So possibly changing that would resolve things peacefully. I don't see how this conflates things, but would be grateful for more explanation if you still think I'm doing so. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature