Bug#919951: ocaml builder must not be called `dune' or provide /usr/bin/dune
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Package: tech-ctte
>
> In #919622 and the associated debian-devel thread,
> "Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/01/msg00227.html
> the file conflict over /usr/bin/dune was discussed.
>
> The rough consensus of the debian-devel thread was that /usr/bin/dune
> ought definitely not to be taken by the ocaml build system, and that
> the best claim on it was the C++ library which already provides a
> number of /usr/bin/dune?* binaries.
>
> Instead, the maintainers of the ocaml package reassigned the bug
> against their `dune' package to the whitedune package, which
> previously provided /usr/bin/dune as a compat symlink.
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919622
>
> They used the phrase
> "As discussed on debian-devel"
> which is very misleading because it makes it sounds like there was a
> consensus for this course of action, whereas the opposite is true.
>
> Apparently as a result of this there was an NMU of `whitedune' to drop
> the symlink /usr/bin/dune.
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919622#58
>
Per article 6.6 of the constitution (which I know you're aware of ;)),
have efforts to resolve this via consensus really failed? Except under
extraordinary circumstances, I would expect whitedune maintainers to NAK
the NMU if they disagreed with this resolution. I don't think the
wording of the NMU changelog alone is enough to involve the TC, nor do I
think the social appropriateness of this NMU is really within our
purview.
d
Reply to: