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

Re: O: Gnus -- A versatile News and mailing list reader for Emacsen.

"Bernhard R. Link" <brlink@debian.org> writes:

>> Should Debian enforce a policy here?
> There is a Developer's reference quite explicit about that topic
> and all those packages beside his.

I guess you refer to "6.7.8 Best practices for orig.tar.gz files".
This describes one way to accomplish the goal - uploading a
DFSG-free version - but isn't explicit in that it's the best
practice. Especially since it does note that people _should_
upload pristine sources if possible.

Do you think this section is a "policy" in that _all_ cases where
DFSG-incompatible stuff removal _have_ to be handled this way? My
point from the beginning was that Manoj's solution to this is a
valid way to accomplish the goal as well - not better, but also
not worse. To enforce one way over the other would require a
policy where it says that this _has_ to be done this way, not only
that it's possible to deviate from the ideal path to accomplish
it, like this section states.

>> If so, who decides on what the policy is? Surely not the ftp-masters.
> Ftp-masters have already to decide what proper splittings of packages
> are, what software they consider properly licensed for Debian. If
> anyone has to decide what goes in and what not, then that's the
> ftp-masters, currently.

The ftp-masters are the judiciary part, not the legislative part
of the process. They decide whether a package conforms to the
"laws" we set up. They shouldn't be burdened with the task of
deciding on what is ok and what is not in the case where we don't
have an explicit policy.

Especially since I don't see what exactly the problem is with
Manoj's approach.

>> Must we decide on a policy? Can't Manoj just package gnus-dfsg and
>> be done with it? Is that really such a big problem?
> I guess it would be less of an issue, if he did not insist of what
> almost everyone else has agreed on and I never saw disputed is
> "unethical".

A lot of people don't eat meat because they think it's unethical
to do so. Some of them go about telling others all the time that
they should stop eating meat because they think their ethics have
to apply to everyone. Others are content with following their own
ethics, not eating meat, but not interfering with others who don't
share their ethics, at most explaining why they prefer not eating

>From what Manoj said here, which of the two kinds do you think he
resembles more?

        -- Jorgen

Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Reply to: