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

Bug#1007717: Native source package format with non-native version

>>>>> "Helmut" == Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> writes:

    Helmut> Hi Russ,
    Helmut> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 09:22:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
    >> > Specifically, I'd like to ask the TC to come up with policy on
    >> native > packages and debian revisions using its power under
    >> 6.1.1.
    >> As a Policy Editor, I support this request.

    Helmut> As a TC member I admit disliking this. While there is
    Helmut> disagreement on how things are supposed to work, the views
    Helmut> don't seem to be that far apart. Urgency is effectively
    Helmut> removed by Lucas agreeing to pause further deprecation
    Helmut> work. Do you think it would be impossible to move forward on
    Helmut> this matter in a consensus-based way?

I think this is like usrmerge.
I actually think there is a rough consensus, but there are one or two
parties who find that consensus unacceptable and who are in a position
to block the consensus.

As an example, the text in policy 5.6.12 has been significantly revised
since Russ and I started discussing this issue in 2014.
It's possible that policy could be improved, but honestly I think that
policy is already consistent with the hypothesis I presented to the TC.

I also already tried to seek consensus where this is possible as DPL,
and included a pointer to my consensus call on the issues where there
was consensus in the material I already presented to the TC.

This is a case where people have slowly been building consensus since
2014.  One of the key stakeholders has not effectively participated
constructively, and so some things haven't been possible.

We're asking the TC to do the last mile work--review the existing
consensus-forming discussions, figure out where we are, and wrap it up
just like you did with usrmerge.

I've even tried to give you the key discussions that happened on
I suspect one of the policy editors could go pull that together for
discussions on debian-policy, but if not, I'd be happy to do that work
if requested.

So, no, I do think this is ready for the TC to finish things up now.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: