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

Re: Bug#993161: pam: some remaining changes for DPKG_ROOT

On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 02:13:16PM +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> Hi Steve,

> Quoting Steve Langasek (2022-09-09 07:09:32)
> > My feedback to you on IRC was that I think it's inappropriate for you to go
> > package-by-package in the BTS to the packages in the base set expecting
> > support for a feature that has to my knowledge never been surfaced for
> > project-wide discussion on debian-devel or similar.

> > So if you want to take that discussion to the Technical Committee to ratify
> > as something that base packages must support, well, I don't think that's the
> > best use of the TC vs just starting a thread on debian-devel,

> I agree that this is not the best use of the TC's time. Since we both agree on
> that and since it has been more than three weeks since our post to d-devel [1]
> without any concerns or otherwise negative feedback, do you still want to wait
> for the TC to decide or do you want to cut it short by applying our patch?

> [1] https://lists.debian.org/166289720850.2390.3729551131862514967@localhost

No need to wait on the TC at all; your post and the subsequent discussion on
debian-devel (and -policy) addresses my concerns, thank you.  At this point
committing and uploading is blocked only on me having the time to context
switch, review the diff (because I deeply trust Sam's technical judgement,
nevertheless won't commit/upload something in my own name without looking at
it myself for accountability purposes), and upload.  I hope I might get this
done this week.

> > but it does satisfy my expectation that there be a project-level review of
> > the design prior to obligating base package maintainers to support this
> > feature.

> We are working on some changes to Debian policy in #1020323 but we are not
> planning to put any "must" statements in the text. Our intention is not to
> obligate anybody to do anything other than apply reasonable patches that we
> provide. If it breaks, it is not your responsibility to fix it. Since the
> DPKG_ROOT variable is empty during normal installations I hope you agree that
> our patch will not be able to introduce any bugs during normal package
> installation. If the chrootless bootstrapping should fail in the future, it is
> not the obligation of package maintainers to fix it. We have said so multiple
> times in the past already...

Hmm, possibly paralleling some other discussions elsewhere.  I understand
and appreciate your position that you will do the work to fix any bugs in
this feature.  As a maintainer, I am happy to work with you on this.  I
don't mean obligation in a policy sense, there was clearly no Debian Policy
language around this at all at the time!  I mean it in a more general sense
encompassing both "social expectations of a fellow maintainer to cooperate"
and "decision imposed by the TC".

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                   https://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: