[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#671120: marked as done (suggest delegating binary name conflicts to tech-ctte as last resort)

Your message dated Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:47:55 +0200
with message-id <20160705154755.GA13194@mails.so.argh.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#671120: debian-policy: suggest delegating binary name conflicts to tech-ctte in last resort
has caused the Debian Bug report #671120,
regarding suggest delegating binary name conflicts to tech-ctte as last resort
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
671120: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671120
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist

Please suggest delegating binary name conflicts to the tech-ctte in last
resort.

The common reading of the according section does neither match what
seems to be the original intention [1] nor my common sense.

 [1] http://lists.debian.org/<879142cjni.fsf@slip-61-16.ots.utexas.edu>


* Russ Allbery [2012-05-01 10:28 -0700]:
> Carsten Hey <carsten@debian.org> writes:
>
> > The origin of what the policy suggests to do if there is no consensus is
> > a mail from Guy Maor <879142cjni.fsf@slip-61-16.ots.utexas.edu>, in
> > which he writes:
> > | That's basically a stick to force developers to reach a consensus.
>
> > Christian Schwarz uploaded this change later in this month.
>
> > I don't think that there ever will be a consensus in all those
> > discussions without discussing in a reasonable way (which failed in the
> > past multiple times).  Previously to this, asking the VP of Engineering
> > for a decision was suggested in this thread.
>
> I have to admit that I'm tempted to change Policy from "if there's no
> consensus, rename both of them" to "if there's no consensus, try harder to
> reach a consensus, and the technical committee decides in last resort."

"technical committee decides in last resort" could be read as if it
would decide without being consulted.  To avid such a misreading,
a clearer wording that for example uses the word 'consulted' could be
used.

Besides this minor nitpicking, it would be great if the policy could be
adapted as described in the quoted mail.


> Most of the time, renaming both of them isn't the right answer.

I'm even unable to imagine a case where renaming both would be the right
answer.


Regards
Carsten

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
* Bill Allombert (ballombe@debian.org) [140323]:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 12:13:22AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: wishlist
> > 
> > Please suggest delegating binary name conflicts to the tech-ctte in last
> > resort.
> 
> Anything can be delegated to the tech-ctte. I do not think policy need to
> mention it.

As Bills Mail was from 2014 and this was the last mail in the report,
it seems we arrived at this conclusion and I'm closing this bug report.


Andi

--- End Message ---
Reply to: