Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > Based on Ian's last response, I think the ballot has two options plus > further discussion, since I'm quite sure that we're not going to outlaw > dh:
> A. debian/rules is not required to be a makefile, only to implement the > same interface as a debian/rules file implemented as a makefile > (including handling of arguments and exit status). Debian Policy > should be updated to change the requirement to a recommendation, and > new versions of the leave package should be permitted to be uploaded to > the archive without changing debian/rules to be a makefile. > B. The Technical Committee affirms the Debian Policy requirement that > debian/rules must be a makefile. All packages in the archive, > including leave, are required to follow this requirement. This > makefile may, as is common practice, delegate implementation of its > targets to a script. > C. Further discussion. At the conclusion of our standard voting period of one week, there were three votes of BAC and one vote of AB. (One additional vote of BAC came in after the voting period had ended.) As this is, depending on how one looks at it, a conflict between a maintainer and ftp-master policy or a maintainer and the current requirements of Debian Policy, I don't believe the 3:1 super-majority requirement applies here and the ballot should be decided by simple majority rule. I don't have the tools available to me at the moment to do the full voting procedure, but I'm fairly sure from those votes that B is the winning option. I'd like someone else could double-check me on that and confirm, and then we can close this bug, deciding on option B. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
