[Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Ian Jackson]

Pirate Praveen writes ("Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] three.js_80+dfsg2-2_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
> On വ്യാഴം 01 മാർച്ച് 2018 05:45 വൈകു, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > For the avoidance of doubt, I don't have a problem with the specific
> > decision of ftpmaster here.  
> 
> Coming back to this specific rejection (I have already started a
> discussion on policy question in d-policy), do you agree node-backbone
> (and all other packages currently in archive and match the criteria of
> rejection used for node-three, ie, a binary package with just symlinks
> and a package.json) should be removed from the archive? If that is the
> general agreement, I will file serious bugs against these packages
> (already in the archive for years).

Firstly, I don't think this follows.  It is right that the criteria
for accepting a new package are stricter than the criteria for
removing an existing one.

Secondly, the actual question of what should be in these packages is
precisely a policy question.  We should decide what our policy is and
then apply it.  (Of course examples can illuminate the policy.)  So I
don't think your queston can be answered until we know what the policy
should be.

By "don't disagree" I don't mean "agree".  I mean that the rejection
seems plausible and I haven't seen enough arguments to have a firm
opinion.

If the policy we decide on is that the packages with just symlinks
should be folded into the packages they provide links to, then yes
those packages should be fixed but it is IMO unlikely to be sensibly
considered an RC bug.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.