Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something simpler
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 05:45:19PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:13:52PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:04:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > "Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" <email@example.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency on another package,
> > > > which happened to be providing an /sbin/init. This was allowed by the
> > > > Debian Policy of the time as well as by the Debian archive. The
> > > > maintainers of the Policy maintainers haven't tried to rule on this at
> > > > all since then. How is this matter now magically taken off the Policy
> > > > maintainers' hands (while it _is_ a matter of Policy) and become a
> > > > matter for the technical committee?
> > >
> > It would be nice that other members from the policy tean could
> > agree to that.
> The policy maintainers job is to maintain the policy document, not
> to adjudicate conflicts.
I would have to disagree with that. The recent delegation among
other things says "defines [...] technical requirements that all
packages must satisfy". What the ctte here wants to do is set
policy about having a Depends on an init system. Under the
delegation I think this is something for the policy editors to
> We can offer advice whether some practice is compliant with the policy
> document, but that is about it. We do not have more authority to report RC bug
> than any other DD.
This is not about being RC or not. This is about setting policy.
> The policy document does not cover every issue. It is restricted to situation
> when there is a consensus to pick one possible implementation and to codify
> in policy.
> Whether the policy allows or not gnome to depend on non-default /sbin/init is a
> side issue until we know what the default init is going to be.
What is going on here is that as policy editors you need to set
policy and that the ctte here is setting policy instead of you.
The question has been asked that it is at this time allowed for
them to do so. It's not up to the ctte to do detailed design
work, and that they should decide between the options discussed
somewhere else if they can not come to a consensus. It has been
argued that this has not been discussed somewhere else, and so
that it's not yet up to the ctte to decide this.
What I understand that Russ is now saying is that if this was
brought to the policy team, he would refer it to ctte. As
delegate he can decide this on his own, but it would be nice
that the other delegates didn't disagree with that.