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

[Pirate Praveen]

On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 15 1:33:42 PM IST, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas at jones.dk> wrote:
>Quoting Pirate Praveen (2019-08-15 08:18:01)
>> 
>> 
>> 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?
>
>Can you quote the conversation on irc?
>
>Can you quote the first rejection?
>
>Basically, can you quote whatever it is that ftpmaster refers to as the
>
>"talk" you've already had with them?

Thanks to matrix providing a built in browser (saving all the history), I could find the logs searching by the bug number.

You can see it from a matrix client,

https://matrix.to/#/!saEdMDOolDMHFHsdhS:matrix.org/$15495421281854XktcP:poddery.com

I have to copy each message from riot separately.

Here it is,

Me: please review node-autoprefixer, it adds libjs-autoprefixer binary required to replace embedded copy of autoprefixer.js in ruby-autoprefixer-rails

waldi: 
Pirate ‍ Praveen: you have been asked to not do that

me: waldi: this time there is a valid reason
unlike the previous cases

waldi: Pirate ‍ Praveen: no. nodejs as dependency is no reason

me: waldi: I'd like to ask this as an official statement from ftp team and I'd like to challenge it with CTTE
should I open a bug agianst ftp.debian.org?

ScottK: Pirate ‍ Praveen: CTTE can't overrule FTP team.
The only way to overrule a delegate is GR.
Just so you know what you're in for.

Gannef, and yes, open a bug.

highvoltage: Pirate ‍ Praveen: fwiw, I know that that path will take you nowhere, the ftp teams's advice here is sound and upwards of 99% of DDs will agree with their judgement here, it's going to be futile to fight it, I suggest you rather find a better solution for the package, that's a better way to spend your (and everybody elses) energy

me: highvoltage: fine, at least let this be on record

highvoltage: policy is quite clear on it and there's even an entire wiki page on the topic (https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies), I guess if you need further records on that, then that's your business

waldi: highvoltage: it's not about code copies. but about adding additional binary packages just to avoid one dependency

me: Ganneff: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=921628

highvoltage: ew that's even worse

Clint: ...

Gannef: it does sound like a plenty bad idea

And some more...

>
>> >>  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.
>
>My suggestion is not to try override a decision.
>
>What you do here on this mailinglist is, I believe, to try discuss what
>
>to do about a decision made by ftpmaster.
>
>My suggestion is try discuss that with the DPL ot the Tech-CTTE.

Thanks, I have mailed DPL about it. I will also talk to Tech-CTTE.

>...unless it is clear to you what to do about the decision from 
>ftpmaster?  As you have not presented us other details than your _own_ 
>reflections I cannot really have any sensible opinion about their 
>decision.

I have quoted the full logs in this email.

>
>> > 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.
>
>There is a difference between ftpmaster making a decision, talking
>about 
>a decision, and providing a policy.
>
>I can certainly understand how ftpmaster is _very_ reluctant to provide
>
>policies - i.e. expectations for future decisions.
>
>Regardless of my opinion, if you want to discuss ftpmaster _policies_ 
>with this team or any other body I again recommend to present not only 
>your side of the story but (verbatim!) ftpmaster side of the story as 
>well!

Done now.

>
> - Jonas

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.