[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Science Policy

Am Dienstag, den 27.01.2009, 08:40 +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > ... how you come to the idea to dictate a
> > policy?!?!?! And: *If* we (all the teams and maintainers) ever agree on
> > one mailing list, then it will definitely not be an Alioth list.
> > debian-science exists.
> I understand the RFC as an attempt to find a common ground for packaging
> of those packages that use
>   Maintainer: Debian Science Team <debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

I disagree. The policy documents itself as a general policy about
"Debian Science" and not as a local applicable packaging guideline.

And debian-science.alioth.d.o is not Debian Science. It contributes
around 20 packages out of a pool of several hundred (>300!), as far as I

> It is just helpful to have some rules.

I already wrote, that packaging teams may write their own packaging
guidelines. I don't have a problem with that (or did I ever object
against your debian-med guidelines?). The document doesn't state, that
it applies to debian-science.alioth.d.o *only*. Instead it is promoted
under the title and intention as the "Debian Science Policy". But
stating personal packaging practices in such a document is IMO a misuse
of it. If you have something applicable to all: Debian New Maintainers
Guide, the Debian Developers Guide and the Debian Policy are the correct
places to collect such information.

> Packages who have a different
> maintainer do not need to follow this policy but are invited to bring
> in their experience if they notice technical details which might be
> enhanced in the RFC.

The "policy" contains recommendations of packaging tools (over other
tools). It contains requirements, which are simply only applicable to a
local Alioth project and not the whole core of all projects contributing
to Debian Science. I really dislike, that it mixes local preferences
with a general purpose. This is arrogant, rude and offending.

If someone wants to write a policy for Debian Science, I suggest to use
topics like the goals, the various ways to achieve the goals, tools to
help (e.g. the meta-packages) and the *various* projects contributing.
If debian-science.alioth.d.o should work as some kind of misc place to
pick up all packages/developers, which did not find a fitting group or
did not want to join an existing group or ... then write this. But don't
add any local packaging preferences not requirements.

PS: debian-science.alioth.d.o states, that it tries to coordinate
scientific packaging. The so called "policy" wasn't coordinated with
*any* of the contributing groups.

Regards, Daniel

Reply to: