Bug#994388: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems
- To: Andrey Rahmatullin <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Bug#994388: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems
- From: Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:45:04 +0200
- Message-id: <Yk/2EM2hEHzplpEF@pc181009.grep.be>
- Reply-to: Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <Yk/yIHm6AaoVktGr@belkar.wrar.name>
- References: <YUHO6m7A2bRbgA5I@momentum.pseudorandom.co.uk> <YjEPzAtAyfq4599F@localhost> <YUHO6m7A2bRbgA5I@momentum.pseudorandom.co.uk> <Yk/l9QizjkH2Ee2L@pc181009.grep.be> <YUHO6m7A2bRbgA5I@momentum.pseudorandom.co.uk> <Yk/yIHm6AaoVktGr@belkar.wrar.name> <YUHO6m7A2bRbgA5I@momentum.pseudorandom.co.uk>
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 01:28:16PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 09:36:21AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > FWIW, I think the TC should punt this bug to a GR.
> > The dpkg maintainer has chosen not to engage with the TC in #994388, and
> > now seems to be actively subverting a validly-made TC decision.
> > I do believe it reasonable to assume the dpkg maintainer has a point if
> > he believes that the currently-chosen way of moving forward is harmful.
> > However, the right way for him to make that point would have been to
> > engage with the TC, the body constitutionally placed to resolve
> > conflicts of this manner, not ignoring them and then doing whatever he
> > wants when the decision inevitably doesn't go his way.
> > I encourage the dpkg maintainer (Cc'd) to engage with the TC in this
> > matter. It is not yet too late; the TC can always roll back decisions it
> > made earlier if it believes, in light of new arguments, those decisions
> > to be wrong. However, if this does not happen, then that does not
> > inspire me with confidence that whatever the TC decides after weighing
> > all the arguments available to them, the dpkg maintainer will follow
> > that ruling. Given that, in case the dpkg maintainer chooses to remain
> > silent again, I believe the only way forward is for the TC to recommend
> > a GR under §4.2.1 of the consitution.
> This effectively means "TC cannot enforce its own decisions and everybody
> can ignore them". Also, who would enforce the GR results and how?
I suppose it does. Do you see a better way forward?
> Note that §2.1.1, at least in my opinion, forbids working against a TC
> decision, but doesn't say who would enforce that and how.
The nuclear option here is obviously to take maintenance of dpkg away
from the dpkg maintainer unless and until he decides to follow the
rules. I didn't want to suggest that (I don't think we're quite at that
level yet), but I'm pretty sure someone will put that option on the
ballot should this get to a GR.