Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:38:15PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In general I worry that your interpretation of resolution texts
> focuses far too much on the exact words used, and far too little on
> the substance of the underlying issues.
>
> In this particular case we have two packages both of which want to
> claim the libjpeg-dev virtual package name, which for technical
> reasons ought to be provided by only one of them. Clearly this is a
> question of overlapping jurisdictions.
My understanding is that the point of virtual packages is so that
several *can* provide it. But you're now telling 1 package that
it can't do that, while you instead could say only one (other)
package can do it in this case.
The difference in my view is that you decide between how a set of
related packages should interact with each other or that you
prevent 1 package from following the normal rules. I have no
problem interpreting the first case as falling under 6.1(2),
but I'm not yet sure about the second.
> The fact that the resolution to this matter of overlapping
> jurisdictions will result in specific changes having to be made to one
> or more packages does not mean that the decision is about overruling
> the maintainer of the "losing" package. _Any_ decision about
> overlapping jurisdictions will necessarily involve directing that
> certain changes be made to one or more packages which their respective
> maintainers will not be happy with.
>
> I.e. your interpretation as I understand it so far entirely
> eviscerates the TC's power to rule in case of overlapping
> jurisdictions. In your view as you have presented it here it appears
> the TC could say something vague and abstract with 1:1 but if we
> actually want the losing maintainer to give up the virtual package
> name we will need to vote again with 3:1.
I have to guess that as ussual we don't understand each other yet,
and probably have a different way of looking at things. And I
guess I'm ussually going to try suggesting things so that it's
unlikely that people doubt that you do have the power to do
something.
As ussual this was not an official interpreatation of the constituion
yet and I do welcome discussions about such topics, so that we can
find a consensus what it says in case of doubt.
Kurt
Reply to: