Pirate Praveen dijo [Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:47:51PM +0530]: > The general case was discussed earlier and a recommendation was given at > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934948#54 > > I'd like a confirmation from you if katex was following your > recommendations or not. I think katex should be a separate binary > package because it is shipping a user facing executable. But ftp > masters don't agree with my interpretation. > > Their rejection mail and explanation is given below. Hello Praveen, You raised this same question to me via private mail; I prefer to answer copying the rest of the Committee, and in a public way. I completely lack context regarding KaTeX (tried downloading its sources, but I am a complete JS newbie and didn't get a hold on it anywhere; don't know what components of it are packaged or not, nor how is your proposed katex package structured, etc.), hence, there is no way for me to express an opinion here. I do feel there is too much soreness still expressed between you and the ftp-masters. So, refering to the same mail you quote, the guidelines Simon carefully worked out begin with: 1. When there is disagreement about the level of splitting necessary between binary and source packages, we encourage maintainers and the ftp team to communicate respectfully, and in particular acknowledge that each other's goals are valid, even if arguing that those goals should be outweighed by higher-priority goals. We also encourage maintainers to be as clear as possible about the purpose and relationship of the various parts of a source package. This is, yes, hard to achieve - but we should strive to communicate better before getting angry and calling in the cavalry. Simon continued with some design principles, that I understand often impact node.js work: "We should not have very large numbers of very small binary packages" and We should not have very large numbers of very small source packages". Is this the case you are arguing for? I don't want to rehash the whole set of guidelines; I want to understand the disagreement you are presenting. And finally, as David already argued - We cannot overrule delegates' decisions. The final call on whether to accept a package is ftp-masters'. Can we ask them to better state their reasons? Probably yes, but that's -I think- about the limit of our action scope.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature