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

Re: Bug#740565: redeclipse-data: should be in main

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Markus Koschany <apo@gambaru.de> wrote:
> On 27.07.2014 10:23, Martin Erik Werner wrote:
> [...]
>> As far as I see it, it is still uncertain whether redeclipse-data
>> belonging in main is a correct assumption, a re-review of the content
>> would be needed, from the previous discussion I think it is indeed
>> *probable* that it would be found fit for main.
> I have reviewed redeclipse and redeclipse-data file-by-file. The patches
> are now attached to this bug report. The licenses are DFSG-free and
> there is not a single file that wouldn't abide by the rules. The only
> thing I noticed was a missing license paragraph about a few public
> domain images which I have added to debian/copyright. The paragraph
> about the Play* fonts could be removed because it appears you moved the
> font to a separate package, fonts-play. Otherwise the copyright file was
> accurate.

Great, thanks for the patches! I'm sure you've realized by now that
the fastest way to get stuff done in Debian is to do it yourself. ;)

>> I don't think this is an RC bug, since keeping it in nonfree is actually
>> the "safer" option (albeit a bad one should it be deemed unnecessary).
> No, this is, was and always will be RC. Fixing this issue during a
> regular upload was preferable but it seems there won't be another
> release in time before the freeze thus it was necessary to finally take
> action.

No, it's not RC; see below.

> Imagine the gnome-shell maintainers decided to put their package into
> non-free because they felt it is "safer". It would make all dependencies
> suddenly uninstallable. You simply can't make arbitrary decisions about
> the archive sections. Just because Red Eclipse is "just" a game makes
> the issue not smaller or less important.

Yes, the gnome-shell maintainers can decide to put their packages into
non-free if they so wish; doing so is not a Policy violation, even if
it sounds ridiculous. And yes, it would make their dependencies
uninstallable, which would indeed lead to RC bugs being filed against
it and/or its dependencies (and would likely be followed by some
heated flamewars on certain mailing lists). It's completely
hypothetical, but the gnome-shell maintainers can move their package
to non-free at any time, and only the CTTE can override them.

> There is no documented Policy about the term "safer" but the Policy is
> very precise about Debian's archive areas. [1] If your package is
> compliant with the DFSG it must be in main because this area "comprises
> the Debian distribution". Otherwise other software, like my "games-fps"
> metapackage from the Debian Games Pure Blend, is not allowed to depend
> or recommend Red Eclipse. Since Red Eclipse is DFSG-free it is a Policy
> violation. Thus the severity must be "serious".

No, Policy §2.2 explicitly states that non DFSG compliant packages
must go in non-free, but nothing about DFSG compliant packages being
forced to be distributed in main. 2.2.1 only says that "Every package
in main must comply with the DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines)",
i.e. package in main -> DFSG-compliant, _not_ the reverse. Policy
doesn't forbid placing DFSG packages in contrib or non-free, as silly
as it may sound, so this simply isn't a RC bug.

Just to be clear, I don't object to placing DFSG-free packages in
main; what I'm arguing against is inflating bug severity to accomplish
your own personal release goals when the bug doesn't violate Policy.
It may be important to you, but if it doesn't meet the definition of a
RC bug, it's not a RC bug, and it's definitely not a release blocker.
Now, just imagine if every maintainer and user decided to inflate the
priority of their own pet bugs...


Reply to: