Hi, Quoting Steve Langasek (2022-09-10 22:16:55) > > > > 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. I think there's a duty, when maintaining a package, to at least send a short reply to bugs against your package and even more so, if pinged multiple times and your co-maintainer explicitly waiting for you and thus this non-action resulting in blocking other people's work. We invoked the TC not because we did not want to discuss on d-devel but because you have kept silent since February 2021 when we filed our initial bug #983427 against pam. In hindsight, we should've written to d-devel, yes. Helmut and myself are working on a mail to send to d-devel to get this done now in the sense of "better late than never". We didn't think that such a mail was necessary because there are only 10 source packages (including pam) that require the DPKG_ROOT variable in their maintainer script for this mechanism to work (that's why I wouldn't classify this as "distro-level change") and because the required changes to maintainer scripts result in zero behaviour changes on anything that is not early-bootstrap. >From my side, I'd be fine with the TC pausing any action on this issue and waiting for our mail to d-devel first. This is assuming that if there is no opposition to the DPKG_ROOT idea, that Steve then also has no objection against merging our patch. Helmut, what do you think? Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature