Re: Distributing software written by hostile upstream developers
On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:00:53AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>>If someone really want to maintain such package, we should not
>>prohibit it, but we should make it clear that it is strongly
>>recommended to not maintain such package, and that the advantage of
>>the software should be weighted against the problems it causes for the
>>Debian community. Perhaps we should also suggest that one start
>>working on alternatives for packages with hostile upstream, instead of
>>spending time on social interactions with upstream. :)
>
> Well, what happens if somebody wants to maintain software where there
> is a strong set of opinion that we don't want it? In this case, I'd
> like to delegate the power to the ftpmasters to say so and reject from
> NEW etc. If we have a clear consensus that that would be OK then fine;
> otherwise I'd like to run this through the GR process to make sure the
> project as a whole agrees.
> It could be controversial, which is why I'm bringing this up now
> rather than via an argument after-the-fact...
I would like to see more on how the ftpmasters (a small group of
overworked people already tasked with too much) will be able to
determine that there is a strong set of opinions that we do not want it
(as opposed to a small vocal minority that vehemently opposes
something -- we have had people violently opposed to things like HAL
and udev)?
Before we chose to override a DD's decision about their own
package, there ought to be an objective criteria for that override, in
my opinion.
manoj
--
Q: What's yellow, and equivalent to the Axiom of Choice? A: Zorn's
Lemon.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: