ACTUAL SOLUTION
===============

1. We close #1109165 #1109167 (and #1109166)

2. We create RC bugs targeting forky, to review and clean up the packages

3. DPL and/or Release teams are warmly invited to publicly reply to
this email and say whether they accept this solution or not. I signed
a thing that said "we do not hide problems" so I warmly invite
everyone to stop emailing me in private. If you can't say it in public
then don't say it.

4. Debian can either trust the maintainer's judgment on what crosses
the line, or produce a detailed document. If we want to produce a
detailed document, it needs to be publicly discussed and voted on,
before forky.


WHY
===

The issues are very very very obviously not RC issues if they have
been there for 22 years without anyone noticing.

I agree that the things crossing the line must be removed, but there
are many and there is no urgency. One must go out of their way to see
things from the -off package. And popcon is really low.

This has been handled very poorly. DPL delegates have happily abused
their position and have refused any discussion.

As I understand the role of the community team is to mediate, so
ignoring emails is the exact opposite of what the mandate of the team
is.

It has been suggested to me that this is all a diversion from the
drama that happened at the debconf and that was hinted on -private. I
have no clue about any of that. I am clearly not a member of any inner
circle, and this is just a speculation.

FUTURE CHANGES ARE NEEDED
=========================

Really, we need proper rules and procedures for the community team and
more transparency.

Replying to emails in a civil way rather than directly privately
contacting other teams to enforce their decisions would be a good
start :)

Best

--
Salvo Tomaselli

I difensori della morale tradizionale sono raramente persone di cuore. Si è tentati di pensare che essi si servano della morale come di legittimo sfogo
al loro desiderio di fare del male agli altri.
-- Bertrand Russell, Perché non sono cristiano. 1957


https://ltworf.codeberg.page/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

(Dropping the CC'list to just d-devel)

Just to set the discussion basis: we're talking about datasets of quotes that are *not* relevant to making Debian stable a technically excellent release. Also, a Release Team member has written the following¹:

With my Release Team hat on (…) Please drop the fortune-*-off binary packages.

With these bases clear…

Le jeudi, 17 juillet 2025, 22.49:30 h CEST Salvo Tomaselli a écrit :

1. We close #1109165 #1109167 (and #1109166)

These are RC bugs targetting trixie, that the Release Team has said they want fixed before trixie gets released.
- If you close them, they'll get re-opened.
- NMUs to strip the *-off binary packages in order to fix RC bugs in trixie
might happen².
- If these don't get fixed soon, the whole source packages will get removed
(automatically) from trixie.

3. DPL and/or Release teams are warmly invited to publicly reply to
this email and say whether they accept this solution or not.

- Please stop involving the DPL; their role doesn't have anything to do with
this discussion³.
- If you want to get feedback from the Release Team, [email protected]
is the better list: they might not be reading debian-devel.

4. Debian can either trust the maintainer's judgment on what crosses
the line, or produce a detailed document.

There are more than just these two options. Debian can also agree that datasets of quotes in *-off(ensive) binary packages are not worth having packages or votes about. Seriously.

The issues are very very very obviously not RC issues if they have
been there for 22 years without anyone noticing.

Wrong: they are now, as per the Release Team decision. Sorry to repeat this, but a delegate has made an explicit request, with their delegate hat on, requesting the *-off packages to be removed from trixie / testing. You're of course entitled to disagree (and be pissed about it), but unless you manage to convince the Release Team otherwise, they are fully in the right to enforce their (DPL-delegated-powers') decision.

One must go out of their way to see things from the -off package. And popcon is really low.

Thank you for outlining why these packages don't matter enough to warrant being shipped in a stable release (which is the only thing the Release Team is asking).

Again, at the risk of repeating myself: despite the sweat and muscle you spent on making the *-off packages better, the Release Team has said they want to release trixie without them. As delegates tasked to release a new Debian stable release, they have better things to do than care about datasets of offensive quotes. This battle is one that noone wants to fight, and the Release Team will prevail. You can either decide to have src:fortunes-* in trixie without the *-off binary packages, or not have src:fortunes-* in trixie at all; your call.

--
OdyX

¹ https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1109166#15
² This is not a threat; I'm just underlining that the developers-reference and
the freeze policy allow NMUs to fix RC bugs.
³ They won't update delegations over this.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYKAB0WIQTjpQ0b6NokWkvBQbzqgwvGpoTNfAUCaHoT9wAKCRDqgwvGpoTN fOv4AP96rLWkqolFsr2CL0mUP43anrytKV0A3oaf58ecLYpP7wEAuADICLbXLjS3 iidoDu7q9Hya15Lxidh2LH/lUwXw2gM=
=4XpH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18/07/25 at 11:29 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:

The issues are very very very obviously not RC issues if they have
been there for 22 years without anyone noticing.

Wrong: they are now, as per the Release Team decision. Sorry to repeat this, but a delegate has made an explicit request, with their delegate hat on, requesting the *-off packages to be removed from trixie / testing. You're of course entitled to disagree (and be pissed about it), but unless you manage to
convince the Release Team otherwise, they are fully in the right to enforce their (DPL-delegated-powers') decision.

To be even more explicit, the release team delegation[1] states: --------------------------------------------------------------->8
The Release Team oversees and manages the releases of the
testing, stable, and oldstable distributions (aka suites).

* Release Team members decide on the release schedule
(e.g. freeze dates, release dates for stable and point
releases for stable and oldstable).

* Release Team members define the content of the suites listed
above, that is:

- They define the packages that are part of those suites.
Generally, that is achieved by deciding:

- Which issues are release-critical (RC) (ie. making the
affected packages not suitable for stable releases)
usually by setting the corresponding bug's severity to
serious, grave or critical. --------------------------------------------------------------->8

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2020/07/msg00004.html

The same wording has been in place since 2013: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/12/msg00007.html

If you want to override this release team decision, see Constitution[2],
4.1.3: https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.en.html

Best,

Lucas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hello,

Just to set the discussion basis: we're talking about datasets of quotes that are *not* relevant to making Debian stable a technically excellent release.

Some people do have .bashrc scripts that this change will break.

Similar changes have already broken my .bashrc scripts before.

- Please stop involving the DPL; their role doesn't have anything to do with
this discussion³.

True, sorry. One might assume that because of the meaning of the word "delegation" but in Debian we made sure to subvert the dictionary.

- If you want to get feedback from the Release Team, [email protected]
is the better list: they might not be reading debian-devel.

The involved people are recipients of the email.

There are more than just these two options. Debian can also agree that datasets of quotes in *-off(ensive) binary packages are not worth having packages or votes about. Seriously.

Sure. But you are not "debian". So I am not sure you are qualified to
answer that question without consulting anyone else.

Wrong: they are now, as per the Release Team decision.

Did Jupiter have no moons before Galileo saw them?

Thank you for outlining why these packages don't matter enough to warrant being shipped in a stable release (which is the only thing the Release Team is
asking).

They a

This battle is one that noone wants to fight

You taking the time to write multiple emails shows differently.

Release Team will prevail. You can either decide to have src:fortunes-* in trixie without the *-off binary packages, or not have src:fortunes-* in trixie
at all; your call.

You forgot I can ask for a vote?

If you are trying to be helpful please list all of the options, not
just the ones you like.

Best

--
Salvo Tomaselli

I difensori della morale tradizionale sono raramente persone di cuore. Si è tentati di pensare che essi si servano della morale come di legittimo sfogo
al loro desiderio di fare del male agli altri.
-- Bertrand Russell, Perché non sono cristiano. 1957


https://ltworf.codeberg.page/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hello,

As you have been told by multiple people: Your package has been subject
to a decision by a delegate with authority to decide the matter in
question. You have been advised as to your options and the appropriate
venues for doing so.

Apparently I deeply misunderstand how debian works.

Do you think you can find the time to tell me what the appropriate venues are?

Best

--
Salvo Tomaselli

I difensori della morale tradizionale sono raramente persone di cuore. Si è tentati di pensare che essi si servano della morale come di legittimo sfogo
al loro desiderio di fare del male agli altri.
-- Bertrand Russell, Perché non sono cristiano. 1957


https://ltworf.codeberg.page/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 05:10:16PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:

As you have been told by multiple people: Your package has been subject
to a decision by a delegate with authority to decide the matter in
question. You have been advised as to your options and the appropriate
venues for doing so.

Apparently I deeply misunderstand how debian works.

Do you think you can find the time to tell me what the appropriate venues are?

The way to override a delegate was linked in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2025/07/msg00214.html

--
WBR, wRAR

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQJhBAABCgBLFiEEolIP6gqGcKZh3YxVM2L3AxpJkuEFAmh6eB4tFIAAAAAAFQAP cGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3Jnd3JhckBkZWJpYW4ub3JnAAoJEDNi9wMaSZLh MfwP/3CP/5FdKoZVt+wct86fBu5WKOaqz+PQPOZdxu3weHFus79fIYXDQRIHwfz+ n5eaih2zOqpIkoUeJ6nDHC58YUTKHoK9vfPYqe55DaGiNSM1F7I0Ly/qCPrkbF3g q1Gp/xmlLB0TlNXSnLSSZyC10K8YhUcSD8AJs0h6u60koroMHQM6cU5weh1/LGek x5cNu/Ibx2CEhfeV8nRcl6A2fkay3eOJQ1N2hnBppKQd+iZolYM5A5pot7UVcrAm 9yPD5MhcDPK5ANX/CtmCIHZK1I5pPFauQN8UhAD8Xbzv7qgv346vRiXckG5zxOry 1bhJwaBnMz8mxaAWoaX0W2sva37EyVWoB3ffRmm2r4k46fYRFC2QoLSKTmrT+kOg Pr8gBAFK4QFwe4201t+Ja3bp8nPIpFOB4YlXg1sfwJgIlVgJSrm8vgtdbf5uuS1y WEoXCUlQE675O9KpDNLNvkgrxZU+hDNeY9OKq+9hTBCb2e2mHrg2Hn34uGCHqmUJ LAQIlCJPk6NFiPoRki3yvxIOquoUaAmYU4RaaQFApxxJS7uFHLGr2aBrii07HYVt VidC1jB++gJMNzTCo6fmDiISL0SJQaku0TShSt+mWQhNmrMTwkm38qlR2fZhJtWA bqsxu1Jo/DbzuV6vOrlq5sO1wI9hENd8uqD3FDuBPqIuZZt4
=Gifz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 01:16:50PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

To be even more explicit, the release team delegation[1] states: --------------------------------------------------------------->8
The Release Team oversees and manages the releases of the
testing, stable, and oldstable distributions (aka suites).

* Release Team members decide on the release schedule
(e.g. freeze dates, release dates for stable and point
releases for stable and oldstable).

* Release Team members define the content of the suites listed
above, that is:

- They define the packages that are part of those suites.
Generally, that is achieved by deciding:

- Which issues are release-critical (RC) (ie. making the
affected packages not suitable for stable releases)
usually by setting the corresponding bug's severity to
serious, grave or critical. --------------------------------------------------------------->8

Is it unreasonable to expect that the Release Team continue its
longstanding practice of doing the aforementioned things in a
collaborative way? My recollection is that the Release Team adopts guidelines/rules which have either been discussed thoroughly (and thus a project-wide consensus has been reached/established) or which have been
the result of a formal decision-making process of the project (e.g., GR, tech-ctte deliberation, etc).

What is happening with the packages that Salvo maintains here is quite obviously arbitrary and capricious. Just looking at the bugs that were referenced in the very first email from Salvo to this list about this particular topic, the sequence of events was:

- CT member files RC bugs, without discussion or rationale
- maintainer closes the bugs
- RT member steps in, re-opens the bugs, with the rationale being "today
I decide that this package no longer belongs in Debian"

BTW, I would argue that Paul exceeded the authority of the delegation
that the Release Team has (though it was perhaps not his intention). The Release Team gets to decide what goes into a release. It is the FTP
masters who are ultimately responsible for what packages are permitted
in the various sections of the Debian archive.

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2020/07/msg00004.html

The same wording has been in place since 2013: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/12/msg00007.html

If you want to override this release team decision, see Constitution[2], 4.1.3: https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.en.html

This really is laughable. In the recent past there has been a fair
amount of criticism directed towards DDs who have initiated or supported
GRs without first trying to discuss a matter and get to some kind of
consensus. Salvo literally does what has been repeatedly described as
the "right thing" before moving towards a GR, and he is being told that
he is wrong and that he should have gone for a GR.

We should probably decide which way is "right".

Regards,

-Roberto

--
Roberto C. S�nchez

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)