Re: Intent to package: debian-keyring
[ Gratuitous Cc to maintainers who already read debian-devel removed;
please respect the Reply-To ]
Christian Schwarz <email@example.com> writes:
> > > It'll be maintained by "Igor Grobman and James Troup
> > > <firstname.lastname@example.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'') 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 126.96.36.199.
^^^^^^^ <- should be 188.8.131.52
> As I wrote to debian-policy a few months ago, section 2.3.2 of the
> Policy Manual _is_ official policy.
Which you yourself admit you invented yourself; no consultation, no
questions asked. Let's please not forget this; it's central to the
> 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_.
Sorry, but if you invent a policy which says "packages must call `rm'
with the arguments `-fr' in postrms'", I *will* ignore you. Neither
you nor policy deserve blind faith or obedience; nobody in the project
> If we leave it up to the maintainers to either follow policy or to
> reject it, we wouldn't need a policy at all!
Policy is not infallible. Just look at the ldconfig episode; had
maintainers blindly followed that policy how much breakage would we
have had? As it was the vast majority of maintainers with shared
library packages simply ignored broken policy, because they knew it
was wrong and to do the things the Right way and try to get policy
fixed did nothing but generate distinctly unpleasant flame wars (been
there, done that, bought the T shirt).
If I hadn't been so... annoyed by the way this particular policy was
created, and the so-called justification for it's continued existence,
I would have probably done what I did with the ldconfig FUD; ignored
it. In retrospect, maybe I should have.
> 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
I already mentioned my intentions in my posts to debian-policy; read
back and see for yourself. You had every opportunity to discuss the
> (BTW, what's the `bogus no-ldconfig FUD' you are referring to?
Chapter 12 of the packaging manual prior to 184.108.40.206 (going by the
changelog at least) tells you not to run ldconfig.
> > 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
I think you might want to look up the word `guideline' and the word
> Our policy applies to all packages in the distribution. Any package
> failing current policy in a severe way will be removed from the
Oh really? Why haven't you removed dpkg then? It's been failing your
personal policy for a long time. And please define severe; unless you
do so carefully you'll find you just promised to remove a large
proportion of the distribution with your fiat power.
> Guy, please don't install the debian-keyring package into hamm or
> slink until we've resolved this issue.
Guy doesn't support this policy either Christian; fiat power or not,
how long are you willing to flout that power and go against the view
of the majority of people participating in the discussion?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org