Suggestions on ruby-task-list and node-deckar01-task-list

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Suggestions on ruby-task-list and node-deckar01-task-list

Pirate Praveen-3
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]. 

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. This means installing node-deckar01-task-list will install ruby with it and ruby-task-list will install nodejs with it. Other option is to remove ruby dependency from ruby-task-list (but there are more dependencies than just ruby) and not add nodejs dependency. The rationale ftp masters give is to reduce number of binary node packages and hence metadata per packages.

In general we have started aggressively embedding smaller nodejs modules already as per ftp maste r suggestion, but in my opinion this is going too far on their mandate.
 
I don't agree with their decision, but the only option I have to challenege it is a GR. I'd like to hear from the rest of the team what you think about the situation. Do you agree with ftp masters? If you don't agree, would you support a GR to reverse this policy?

Thanks
Praveen

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Jonas Smedegaard-2
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?


> 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 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?

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.


Thanks for your work on this,

 - Jonas

--
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Pirate Praveen-3
On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 14 11:05:03 PM IST, Jonas Smedegaard <[hidden email]> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Xavier Guimard-3
Le 15/08/2019 à 08:18, Pirate Praveen a écrit :

> On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 14 11:05:03 PM IST, Jonas Smedegaard <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Jonas Smedegaard-2
In reply to this post by Pirate Praveen-3
Quoting Pirate Praveen (2019-08-15 08:18:01)

>
>
> On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 14 11:05:03 PM IST, Jonas Smedegaard
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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?


> >>  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.

...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.


> > 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!


 - Jonas

--
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Pirate Praveen-3


On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 15 1:33:42 PM IST, Jonas Smedegaard <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Quoting Pirate Praveen (2019-08-15 08:18:01)
>>
>>
>> On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 14 11:05:03 PM IST, Jonas Smedegaard
>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Pirate Praveen-3
In reply to this post by Jonas Smedegaard-2


On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 15 1:33:42 PM IST, Jonas Smedegaard <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Quoting Pirate Praveen (2019-08-15 08:18:01)
>>
>>
>> On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 14 11:05:03 PM IST, Jonas Smedegaard
>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Pirate Praveen-3
In reply to this post by Jonas Smedegaard-2


On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 15 1:33:42 PM IST, Jonas Smedegaard <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Quoting Pirate Praveen (2019-08-15 08:18:01)
>>
>>
>> On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 14 11:05:03 PM IST, Jonas Smedegaard
>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Pirate Praveen-3
In reply to this post by Pirate Praveen-3
[Sorry for multiple copies, my mail server was down due to dnssec issues and I retried sending many times and all got send when it came back]

On 2019, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 16 3:09:24 PM IST, Pirate Praveen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Thanks, I have mailed DPL about it. I will also talk to Tech-CTTE.

I have opened it here,
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=935160

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