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

[Xavier]

Le 15/08/2019 à 08:18, Pirate Praveen a écrit :
> 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 

Hi,

I'm not enough fluent in English to understand all messages in these
issues, but I think we could start by a mail on debian-devel or
debian-private to launch a discussion.