Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Suggestions on ruby-task-list and node-deckar01-task-list
On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 14 11:05:03 PM IST, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:
Quoting Pirate Praveen (2019-08-14 19:08:47)
Hi ruby and js teams,
task_list project [1] provides both ruby and nodejs code from the
same
repo. Currently only ruby-task-list binary package is created. I
added
a new binary package node-deckar01-task-list for the nodejs code, but
it was rejected by ftp masters [2].
Did you quote ftpmaster in full in that referenced post written by you?
Yes.
They think we should not add a new binary package for this case and
instead should use a Provides field and a single binary package.
Do they? In what you reference above I only see Ftpmaster saying
"We've
talked about this." which can frankly mean a lot of different things.
I agree, that is why I asked them to state their position clearly, first on irc, then on BTS. I even shared the BTS link on irc while we were discussing.
This was before the second rejection. On second rejection, I again asked them to reply on the bug. Do you have any other suggestion to get an official statement from them?
I don't agree with their decision, but the only option I have to
challenege it is a GR.
You mean you have already tried the route of going to the technical
committee, and asking for the opinion of the DPL? Or am I missing
something making those options a no-go?
FTP masters made it clear that CTTE cannot override a delegate on irc. I have seen confirmation from CTTE members for the same on another issue about browserified _javascript_ and dfsg. [1]
"You seem to be asking us to decide on DFSG compliance (in place of the FTP
Team); but it's not at all clear that the constitution enables the TC to
override Delegates or decisions made by delegates (see §6.1)."
Same for DPL, a DPL cannot override a delegate.
Whichever options available, I think it would be helpful with the
opinions of stakeholders more clearly laid out - i.e. more than quoting
ftpmasters for saying "We've talked about this." and you taking
responsibility for explaining what that's supposed to mean.
I agree, it is not a situation I like to be in as well. I asked multiple times using multiple forums (email, irc and BTS) for ftp master to officially state their policy, but none worked. With ftp master refusing to even provide a statement or rationale for the decision, it seems GR is the only option. I could still ask CTTE for their opinion as it can help in case of a GR. But I wanted to first check with the affected teams what they think before going to CTTE or GR.
Reply to: