Re: jquery debate with upstream
Le Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:47:44AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
> I note that the ftpmasters currently reject packages that are missing
> source for non-programmatic works (REJECT-FAQ explicitly mentions
> PS/PDF documentation). So the current archive requirements are in
> practice stricter than the DFSG and the attempted DFSG clarification
I think that this hard-line position is problematic at mutiple levels. One of
them is that it is far more frequent for an upstream work to occasionally
receive additional documentation or artwork with missing source, compared with
receiving addtional source code under a non-DFSG-free license. As a
consequence, it is quite common for packages in main to suddenly fall in a
limbo where they are DFSG-free and FTPmaster-rejectable.
With a best-effort approach, following the spirit and the letter of the DFSG,
one can engage in a constructive discussion with Upstream. However, with a
hard-line approach it is hard to not sound like an ultimatum menacing to remove
the package from Debian (usually, nobody volunteers to maintain these packages
Personally, this is a reason why I have quitted R packaging. This is far too
stressful for me as I beleive that as a packager it is my responsibiltiy to
keep a package in main if possible, but on the other hand the situation is out
of my control (to the extent being between the hammer and the anvil can be
considered having some control).
The take home message is that when Upstream starts to add documentation or
artwork in his documentation, it should be something positive for all, even if
it is started in a way that can be improved, and not a source of RC bugs as it
is now. I think that the hard-line point of view does not motivate and rather
leads people to give up.
Have a nice week-end.
Debian Med packaging team,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan