Bug#535645: Wrongfull removal of ia32-libs-tools
* Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) [090810 01:19]:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 10:22:14PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > If the transition plan is like Goswin said here, I tend to consider
> > removing ia32-libs-tools to be wrong. My impression on that plan is
> > however that there is currently next to no buy-in from
> > dpkg/apt-maintainers, ftp* or anyone else who should be in the loop
> > for major changes. Looking at debian-devel during July shows quite
> > many heated discussions, which is usually a sign that a plan is not
> > accepted by the community at large.
>
> The transition plan described is Goswin's own, not one that is the object of
> a larger consensus.
That's why I said "the plan is not accepted by the community".
> My opinion is that the transition plan should consist
> of not having ia32-libs-tools anywhere near the archive.
Still, if the consensus *would* be that it is part, I'd be willing to
override the ftp-masters. Discussions don't make that probable.
> > If the transition plan is to avoid the conflicts (like put by Steve),
> > then the removal of ia32-libs-tools was necessary. I actually would be
> > interessted who is the driving that transition plan - a few names were
> > put up, but I haven't seen someone saying "I do it". Also the question
> > on buy-in should be answered here as well.
>
> To what "transition plan" are you referring here? Are you talking about
> multiarch? It seems so, but I'm not sure, as multiarch is not a "transition
> plan", it's a design for laying out packages; and one which, if done right,
> has so few transition requirements as to defy being called a "plan".
replace the word "transition" by "implementation" then please. :)
> I am currently driving the implementation of multiarch, in the sense that I
> am investing time in pushing to make it happen; this will of course not
> happen without agreement from affected maintainers, and I am indebted to a
> number of others who are doing much of the work on implementation, but in
> terms of taking overall responsibility for keeping multiarch moving forward,
> that's exactly what I've been doing since about March of this year.
Good. Thanks. (I had the impression you were doing that, but I
couldn't remember to have read anywhere "I do that". Thanks for
clarification.)
[ buy-ins snapped ]
Now, Goswin has the choice to show a similar buy-in from core
maintainers in Debian. After private conversations I had with some, I
however doubt that this is possible.
Unless proven otherwise, I tend to the following conclusions:
1. The ftp-masters removed ia32-libs-tools with the following message
from the archive "RoThe Project; Most idiotic breakage ever.". About
45 mintes later (and not linked) they sent out this mail to
debian-devel http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/07/msg00060.html
2. The tech ctte was asked by Goswin to overrule the ftp-maintainer
decision to remove ia32-libs-tools.
3. After careful review, the transition plan to multiarch from Goswin
that includes usage of this tool doesn't seem to have broad support.
4. However, the implementation plan for multiarch from Steve has broad
support, with buy-in of key maintainers.
5. Steve is driving that implementation plan for some time, and he
explicitly disagrees (with stated reasons) with the presence of
ia32-libs-tools in the archive.
6. The way the decision of removal was communicated to Goswin seems
suboptimal to me. This however doesn't make the decision wrong.
7. Considering all these facts, I would recommend the tech ctte
to refuse to overrule the ftp-masters.
Comments?
Cheers,
Andi
Reply to: