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

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

On 29.07.2014 08:04, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Markus Koschany <apo@gambaru.de> wrote:
> 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. ;)

This and that taking the initiative and doing the work gets punished.

>> 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.

What's your point here since you agree that moving the package to
non-free would ultimately lead to RC bugs being filed?

>> 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.

I have heard "the Debian Project is an association of individuals who
have made common cause to create a free operating system" and not a
system of free software that they maintain in a repository called
"non-free" and which is not part of the official Debian distribution. It
is common sense that a DFSG compliant package must go in main because it
does not fit the description of the non-free and contrib repositories.
This is a very simple deduction and makes perfectly sense if you know
that "only [main] is considered part of the distribution."

> 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.

Yes, it sounds silly and I disagree with your assumption. Even if this
was true it would certainly violate the core and the spirit of the Policy.

> 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...

By now you should know my work and being aware that I have fixed quite a
lot of RC bugs in this team. I have never inflated the severity of bugs
and I don't create new ones purely on a whim when I am not convinced
that this is the right thing to do. Having Red Eclipse in non-free again
for Jessie makes the package "unfit to release" in my opinion thus I
have raised the severity. In other words it is time to act.

I am not thrilled to continue this discussion since we both agree that
#740565 is a bug and we have a patch already. I would like doing real
work again instead of arguing why free software should be in main.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: