Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 05:37:01PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> To the Project Secretary: Ian raised the point that he feels that option
> A should not require 3:1. The "Provides: libjpeg-dev" here is
> essentially a technical device to ensure that packages can declare
> Build-Depends: libjpeg-dev and that we get consistent results across the
> archive without having to make hundreds of changes to individual
> packages. Ian's opinion is that this is a simple case of overlapping
> jurisdiction (essentially, maintainership of a package, albeit a virtual
> one, under 6.1(2)), and therefore does not require a supermajority.
>
> Could you please interpret the constitution for us? Does option A
> require 3:1, or only a simple majority (perhaps with some trivial
> rewording)? Thanks.
The text says that you're using your power to decide something
under 6.1(4). I can't see how that doesn't require a 3:1 majority.
The text is also saying what a specific package should do, and
that does sound a lot like overriding a maintainer.
So if you really want to prevent using a supermajority, I suggest
you write is so that you at least don't mention the other package
by name but make it more general.
I also suggest you don't mention the name libjpeg-dev directly but
instead use words to describe it so that it still applies when it
needs to be renamed for whatever reason.
Kurt
Reply to: