[Pkg-javascript-devel] Suggestions on ruby-task-list and node-deckar01-task-list

[Pirate Praveen]

On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 14 11:05:03 PM IST, Jonas Smedegaard 
<jonas at jones.dk <mailto:jonas at 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.

> 
> Thanks for your work on this,
> 
> [1] <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839570#40>
>  - Jonas

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/attachments/20190815/e98e2c5b/attachment.html>