Your message dated Thu, 3 Jul 2014 13:26:28 -0400 with message-id <20140703172628.GA16501@helios.pault.ag> and subject line Re: Bug#753608: Clarify use of conflicts, clarify what constitutes abuse of the relation has caused the Debian Bug report #753608, regarding Clarify use of conflicts, clarify what constitutes abuse of the relation to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 753608: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=753608 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: submit@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Clarify use of conflicts, clarify what constitutes abuse of the relation
- From: Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 11:01:28 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20140703150128.GA31171@helios.pault.ag>
Package: debian-policy Severity: important thanks Hey Policy, I'd like to clarify the purpose of the Conflicts relation, as written in section 7.2 and 7.4. Recently a package (systemd-must-die) was uploaded to NEW. This package creates a Conflicts relation with systemd packages, and tries to prevent their install[1]. I see this as an abuse of the Conflicts relation, and *not* a valid reason to use it. In my opinion, this is a needless relation, and not why Conflicts exists. I'd really like a clarification on the point to see if my reading is correct, and secondly, I'd really like to see policy adjusted to explicitly forbid or allow this use in the examples (cosmetics, really). Thanks for your work, Paul [1]: really it'll just cause apt to remove the systemd-blocking-package. -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txtAttachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
- Cc: 753608-close@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#753608: Clarify use of conflicts, clarify what constitutes abuse of the relation
- From: Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 13:26:28 -0400
- Message-id: <20140703172628.GA16501@helios.pault.ag>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 87lhsa1hsk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
- References: <[🔎] 20140703150128.GA31171@helios.pault.ag> <[🔎] 87lhsa1hsk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
OK. I'm closing this bug for now. Enough people think this isn't the right place to define it, and I think that seems fair. On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:19:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > The concern I have with raising this issue in the Policy context is that > Policy is not really keeping up even with the uncontroversial changes to > Debian packaging standards, and we do not have a process that works well > for highly controversial topics. > > The nature of these packages has been the topic of very hot flamewars on > debian-devel already, and I find it very unlikely that we'd be able to > reach any consensus via the Policy process on their merits. > > I think that, if you want to raise formal objections to this package > approach, it would need to go to the Technical Committee instead. Aye. I'm very unlikely to raise the issue there. I'll just end this here and let nature take it's course. I have enough faith in the folks involved to arrive at a sane solution. I was just trying to define a grey area that I thought was one shade of grey, but turns out to be a completely different shade. Such is life. > That said, the other thing I would say is that sometimes it's worth > bending rules or accepting things that feel like a misuse of a facility if > it defuses social tension. It's more important that we all work together > on Debian than that we follow any specific packaging rule. I think part > of the debate over these packages is precisely whether they're divisive or > defusing, but given that there seems to be some good faith progress > towards things like changing the name of the package, I'm not sure this is > something on which it's worth pushing all that hard. > > The ftp-masters can, and should, arrive at their own conclusions using > their own process for NEW acceptance, and I'm happy to let them follow > whatever process they choose. But more broadly in the project I think > it's worth thinking about whether this is a place where time will heal > wounds. We're *very* early in the process of adopting systemd, and I > think people's discomfort will decrease with time. > > -- > Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> > -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txtAttachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---