Web lists-archives.com

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED




On വ്യാഴം 01 മാർച്ച് 2018 10:47 വൈകു, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> We should not wait for dissent just forever. The issue you mention was
> rejected by ftp-masters, then brought to the TC, then dismissed by the
> TC as not-our-role-to-overrule-delegates, and some more days
> passed. Do you really think there's a brewing dissent within the
> ftp-masters team that has not yet bubbled to become public?

My point was: either dissent or agreement, another member should respond
to indicate it is a team decision rather than waiting for random number
of days in case a decision was challenged (I did not imply there was a
dissent). But Joerg already clarified that decisions are coordinated.

So the only realistic options are, 1. Just do what they say irrespective
of its technical merit or following team standards 2. Get it overruled
by a GR which is really unlikely to succeed.

So in this specific case, I will add these files to libjs-three. I think
ftp masters don't want to distinguish between browser environment and
node environment, but just have one package. See
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837467#22 for a
previous instance of this demand. I think arbitrarily reducing the
number of binary packages is more important than following JavaScript
team policy https://wiki.debian.org/Javascript/Policy which says "should
generate a node-foo binary package if the script is usable also for Nodejs".

I also propose we abandon the current Javascript team policy because it
is not supposed to be followed. Just have one binary package for every
source package irrespective of it is useful for node or browser.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature