[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#963112: marked as done (Request for advice on katex rejected by ftp masters)

Your message dated Wed, 15 Jul 2020 22:12:11 +0200
with message-id <b6813395bad66da1d749a69afa4a2dba@debian.org>
and subject line Technical Committee response to #963112
has caused the Debian Bug report #963112,
regarding Request for advice on katex rejected by ftp masters
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
963112: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=963112
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: tech-ctte

Hi,

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.

Thanks
Praveen


-------- Original Message --------
From: Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>
Sent: 2020, ജൂൺ 19 3:14:43 AM IST
To: Pirate Praveen <praveen@onenetbeyond.org>
Cc: pkg-javascript-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net, ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org, Debian Javascript Maintainers <pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Subject: Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] node-katex_0.10.2+dfsg-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

On Thursday, June 18, 2020 4:57:52 PM EDT Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On 2020, ജൂൺ 19 1:40:09 AM IST, Bastian Blank <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org> wrote:
> >The introduces an unnecessary split into katex and libjs-katex.
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934948#54
> 
> * User-facing executable programs associated with a library should usually
> be packaged in a non-library binary package whose name reflects the program
> (for example tappy, flatpak, parted) or collection of related programs (for
> example kmod, libsecret-tools, libglib2.0-bin), rather than being bundled
> in the same binary package as the runtime library.
> 
> Do you disagree with recommendation of ctte or you don't think it does not
> apply here?

You did read the rest of that, right?

Scott K
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi!

Thanks for submitting the bug to the technical committee.
As we said on https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=934948#54, we encourage maintainers and the ftp-team to communicate respectfully and try to find agreement when possible, considering that each other's goals are valid.
In this specific issue, it seems that there has been additional information provided to the ftp-master team that might resolve the issue. If that is not the case, we encourage you to keep communicating amicably to find a solution that is acceptable to both parties.
We hope that this can be resolved without having to go through a General Resolution, which would be very taxing to everyone involved. 

--
Regards,
Margarita Manterola

--- End Message ---
Reply to: