Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Adam Warner <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> As Bill Allombert just pointed out, the Intention To Package process was
> clearly subverted:
> Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package,
> you must then submit a bug report (Bug reporting, Section 7.1)
> against the pseudo-package wnpp describing your plan to create a new
> package, including, but not limiting yourself to, a description of
> the package, the license of the prospective package, and the current
> URL where it can be downloaded from.
> That is, "you must" submit descriptions of the new packages, including
> their license(s).
Er, statements in the Developer's Reference are not Policy and are not a
requirement for Debian Developers. The word "must" there does not mean
what it means in Policy.
It's an important document and certainly something that every developer
should read and endeavor to follow where it makes sense, but things go
into the Developer's Reference rather than Policy frequently precisely
*because* they don't make sense as global requirements and there are
reasons why one might not wish to follow them.
It is, in fact, quite common for no ITP to be filed when the people doing
the work believe that everyone involved already knows that it's going on
and the ITP would serve no useful coordination purpose. For example, I
don't recall any ITPs filed for all the X.Org 7 packages, and I think
doing so would have been silly.
> When did we decide, as a community, to defend and indemnify Sun for the
> community's mistakes in packaging Sun's implementation of Java the
> language and platform?
Since Debian has no legal existence as an entity, we clearly didn't.
There is no legal "Debian" entity that could take on such an obligation
other than the SPI, and I think it's clear that the SPI didn't in this
case. I'd say that the obvious interpretation would be that the
ftp-masters take on that responsibility individually.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>