On Sat, 2018-12-22 at 21:03:18 +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > (Not sure debian-devel is the right place for this discussion, but > oh well...)
Yeah, this should probably have been brought up on debian-project, if at all… > On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 08:32:07PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Sat, 2018-12-22 at 10:11:53 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > [...] > > I think the summary mischaracterizes the situation a bit TBH. > [...] > > > - Dmitry refused to cancel the NMU, which then went into the archive. > > > > Dimitry refused to cancel the NMU *himself*. > [...] > He also said the maintainers had to get the CTTE to overrule > his decision if they did not want to accept his NMU..... Not quite. Here are the relevant quotes: ,--- [2018-11-28 18:48] Dmitry Bogatov <kact...@debian.org> > I am worried: freeze is coming, and nothing is happening. I am not going > to miss another release. Hereby I inform you, that I uploaded NMU into DELAYED/15. Feel free to cancel it, providing rationale why it is not "reasonable". Quoting from TC (#746715): [... ] That includes merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing support without a compelling reason. [...] `--- and later on: ,--- [2018-12-17 12:56] Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> > It's clear that you are unhappy with the situation, so am I. > Maybe we should involve the CTTE and have them work out and define the > criteria and interfaces an alternative /sbin/init needs to provide and > what behaviour can be expected or not (and have an automated test suite > which tests all this). Sure. I will write draft summary of disagreement in a week or so into this bug. But until and unless CTTE overrules my decision, `runit-init' will be installable without uninstalling essential packages, either as pre-dependency of bin:init or as package, that provides `init'. `--- So I clearly read there: 1. The maintainers can cancel the NMU (as is their right really), and provide a rationale. 2. If 1. happens (and I understand, unless a compelling reason is put forward), he is stating that unless overruled he'll go forward with the plan to add runit support even if that implies adding a «Provides: init» on one of the runit packages. > (which apart from refusing to listen to very qualified developers with > decades of experience also IMO suggests he has gotten the constitution > completely backwards.) So, I've stated earlier, I think the NMU was probably socially rude, and something I'd not consider doing. Procedurally? I guess it was OKish, but I guess that's a consequence we get when people involved the ctte to muddle the social and procedural fabric of the project… We are also talking about a change that affects only people who might want to use runit as their init system. Compare that with, I don't know, the merged-/usr deployment hack, which is the new irreversible default, and which breaks stuff, and where people have been warning about for a long time… > I have only seen a limited amount of Dmitrys work, but my impression > is that he's not someone who should be trusted with unrestricted > uploading privileges. I think fast-tracking him through NM was > a mistake and would suggest he should take the full tour. Oh, wow… Regards, Guillem