Web lists-archives.com

Re: Consensus Call: Do We Want to Require or Recommend DH; comments by 2019-06-16





On May 27, 2019 11:50:38 AM UTC, Sam Hartman <hartmans@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman <debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>    Scott> If we want to make not using dh except in certain situations
>    Scott> a bug, it seems like something for a policy should kind of
>    Scott> item.  We have an existing process for updating policy, so
>    Scott> this should probably be kicked over there for further
>    Scott> evaluation.
>
>So a discussion like this tends to serve as inputs to discussions in
>the
>rest of the project including policy.  However, I'd hope that delegates
>like the policy editors or the TC would be guided by project consensus.
>
>And If this consensus call stands, my next action as DPL will be to
>talk
>to various people who are impacted about next steps.
>
>The project is not well served by having each team rehash all the
>global
>discussions.
>Absolutely, whoever takes this on on the policy front (TC or policy
>editors) should figure out how to say this in policy.  Absolutely if
>they find factors we failed to consider globally they should come back
>to us.  If they read the discussion and believe I made the wrong
>consensus call for that discussion, they should come back and say so.
>
>But no I think we as a community right here get to decide what's a bug
>if we want to, and I think it's reasonable for us to hold our delegates
>accountable for implementing that decision or having a good reason to
>do
>otherwise.
>
>--Sam

That's fine.  I've no objection to the determination that there is rough consensus among the DD's that participate on debian-devel that packages should use dh.

My concern is that this is not sufficient to resolve the question of if a package buggy that does not do so.  I'd like it also to be clear that because lintian flags something like this isn't enough to make a package buggy.

I think the policy process is the next step to implement this aspect of the discussion.

Scott K