Re: Intent to package: debian-keyring
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On 18 Apr 1998, James Troup wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Santiago approached us (pgp-update) about splitting the debian-keyring
> > from doc-debian because a) the keyring tar ball is currently 256Kb
> > (36% of doc-debian's installed size) and growing (it may eventually
> > double in size when I get round to adding a debian-keyring.gpg) and b)
> > the keyring is updated much more frequently than doc-debian needs to
> > be (doc-debian wasn't updated for 7 months at one point).
> >
> > So we intend to create a debian-keyring package which will be uploaded
> > weekly (if there are no changes, there'll be no upload, but given the
> > last couple of months I don't anticipate that RSN). It'll be
> > maintained by "Igor Grobman and James Troup <pgp-update@debian.org>".
> > I know this is controversial, but quite frankly, I don't care. The
> > current ``policy'' was invented by Christian with zero consultation
> > (he ``thought it was already policy''[1]) and until it's ratified by
> > the developers I will ignore it as much as I ignored the bogus
> > no-ldconfig FUD in the packaging manual prior to 2.4.0.1.
Just go get this right: As Policy Manager I have fiat power WRT policy
decisions. (This was stated by Bruce when I was nomiated and repeated by
Ian J. on 8 Dec 97--check out debian-private if you have doubts.)
As I wrote to debian-policy a few months ago, section 2.3.2 of the Policy
Manual _is_ official policy. There is a currently a discussion on
debian-policy about this section--but until we have a result from the
discussion, this section applies _as_ _is_.
If we leave it up to the maintainers to either follow policy or to reject
it, we wouldn't need a policy at all!
I'm very disappointed that you've choosen this way to issue your opinion.
It would have been much better if we had discussed the situation of the
debian-keyring package in detail on debian-policy before.
(BTW, what's the `bogus no-ldconfig FUD' you are referring to? There never
was a packaging manual 2.4.0.1...)
> > Personally I think this package could go into hamm since it is a) not
> > really new but is a derivative of a package already in hamm, b) Arch:
> > all, c) very simple, it's hard to imagine release-critical errors one
> > could make in packaging it. But if Brian disagrees I won't argue the
> > point and it'll go to slink.
> >
> > Any objections? (To the package itself, only please; take any
> > comments about the multiple-maintainership to debian-policy)
> >
> As to the package: Go for it!
>
> As for the Policy violation: Go for it!
It's up to you which guidelines you want to follow--but if you want to
maintain packages for our distribution, you'll have to follow our
guidelines! Our policy applies to all packages in the distribution. Any
package failing current policy in a severe way will be removed from the
distribution.
Just to make it very clear: The current policy is documented in _three_
manuals, namely the Policy Manual, the Packaging Manual, and the
Developer's Reference; version 2.4.1.0 is latest. These manuals are always
available online, at http://schwarz.developer.debian.org/policy/
> I've said this before, and I know that some disagree, policy is a set of
> guidelines, not a straight jacket.
Obviously, this is nonsense. The policy manuals make it very clear how
`straight' our `jacket' is--this varies depending on the documented
subject: Some statements give the maintainer a lot of freedom (e.g., `If
necessary you may deviate from the details below.'--section 3.3.8) while
in other places no exceptions are allowed (e.g., `No package may include
device files in the package file tree.'--section 3.3.6).
Guy, please don't install the debian-keyring package into hamm or slink
until we've resolved this issue.
James, please join the discussion on debian-policy again. I'd like to now
which advantages you see with having both of your names listed in the
Maintainer field and which procedure you're planning to use for
maintaining the package (a public CVS archive?).
Thanks,
Chris
- -- Christian Schwarz
schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
Debian has a logo! schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
Check out the logo PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
pages at http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/debian-logo/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAwUBNTps3k4c72jvRVaFAQHMmQQA2I2arzR8Bg1P37vc30X6JxlKfO/m5JBu
STjvPfcHWCfVgkY+wX+PCuqVy95E/VZSlKr/X+CSh0hVcy0nfH6SQJwp8vnS6zT2
MzHtX+0BNEP9l2HQLgUhvphmeICBuO7zivHXenh0gMq2KQWn/xpZFphVxXGUoSTx
H9MShLCV0lw=
=vMU9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: