Matthew Vernon writes ("Re: Bug#1106402: dpkg-source, native source package
format with non-native version"):
> I think Ian is right that we could declare as he wishes under 6.1.1 that:
>
> dpkg-source should be able to build "3.0 (native)" source packages
> with a non-native version number.
>
> ...although if the dpkg maintainers continue to decline to allow a fix
> of #737634 to implement such a policy I'm not quite sure where it would
> leave us constitutionally.
I think that would constitute authorising an NMU. In other words,
authorising an NMU is what I am asking you to do.
Apparently that wasn't clear from my original request. Since the
effect of a decision should be unambiguous, it would be a good idea
for the TC to explicitly say that you are authorising an NMU. [1]
It seems clear to me that 6.1(1) empowers the TC to authorise an NMU
to dpkg, because dpkg is a "non-experimental package building tool" so
you do not need to use 6.1(4). [2]
> I incline to the view that we should probably make such a declaration,
> and suggest to the release team that such a fix should be allowed into
> trixie (though obviously it's up to them).
Thanks for your supportive opinion.
Ian.
[1] I imagine the actual upload could be done by the TC chair, perhaps
as a sponsored upload prepared by one of the supplicants here. I
think that's a usual process for implementing a TC decision?
[2] In 6.1(1) "behaviour" is explicitly listed, separately from
"contents of technical policy manuals", so 6.1(1) definitely doesn't
just cover documentation.
The Constitution doesn't talk directly about NMUs, only about
decisions. Indeed it generally doesn't talk about how decisoins are
implementated. Rather, it assumes that they will be.
Another way to look at this is to consider, what if an implementation
of the decision were to be uploaded to DELAYED? I think Constitution
2.1(1) would bar a dcut or revert.
If anyone doubts that the TC can authorise an NMU to dpkg under
6.1(1), I guess we should ask for a ruling from the Secretary.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
