Comment 24 for bug 2047780

Daniel, I don't want you to feel burned over this. That wiki page does seem quite rational, and I appreciate that you linked it. I'm reading some mixed feelings, so let me be clear: thank you for the work you *are* able to put into this.

Both Gianfranco and I are Ubuntu Core Developers but are also Debian Developers. An expectation of working with Debian is #3 of the Social Contract, "Don't Hide Problems" https://www.debian.org/social_contract
If Debian has problems in their packaging that do exist, please file a bug. If the maintainer is non-responsive in Debian, there is a process for non-maintainer uploads (and I would personally help you with this). My point of disagreement is not how we are addressing the Ubuntu uploads as much as how we are working with Debian to fix them. If the Debian team is non-collaborative, that should be addressed with the appropriate governance board. Either way, there should be a clear diff, whether the community has to help or not.

That being said, considerateness is part of Ubuntu's CoC. I will push my commits there in the morning. I do apologize again for any undue stress. I would rather address this head on, because it means a better Bluetooth package for our users.

Jeremy, the reason evolution-data-server has uninstallable binaries is because of the binfmt-supoort i386 allowlist issue at hand. Please confirm whether you have a customer story that will be impacted by this, or if we think a user will seriously need this support on i386 in 2024. I may be an Ubuntu Core Developer, but I respect that it's not my call alone to make, and the last thing I want to do is regress something for a customer. That's why I'm being up front about these issues.