On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 05:37:01PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > To the Project Secretary: Ian raised the point that he feels that option > A should not require 3:1. The "Provides: libjpeg-dev" here is > essentially a technical device to ensure that packages can declare > Build-Depends: libjpeg-dev and that we get consistent results across the > archive without having to make hundreds of changes to individual > packages. Ian's opinion is that this is a simple case of overlapping > jurisdiction (essentially, maintainership of a package, albeit a virtual > one, under 6.1(2)), and therefore does not require a supermajority. > > Could you please interpret the constitution for us? Does option A > require 3:1, or only a simple majority (perhaps with some trivial > rewording)? Thanks.
The text says that you're using your power to decide something under 6.1(4). I can't see how that doesn't require a 3:1 majority. The text is also saying what a specific package should do, and that does sound a lot like overriding a maintainer. So if you really want to prevent using a supermajority, I suggest you write is so that you at least don't mention the other package by name but make it more general. I also suggest you don't mention the name libjpeg-dev directly but instead use words to describe it so that it still applies when it needs to be renamed for whatever reason. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
