 Forwarded from Eickmeyer: So, RE: the merge request: experimental Lintian tags are shaky ground to go on to begin with because they may or may not become policy. We cannot assume they will become policy, so unless they become policy, they should not be addressed.
 
 The other issue is that, unless liblxqt becomes a dependency, this is a non-issue, as it's not a dependency for everything currently, from what I understand, or at least it doesn't need that variable just yet.
 
 Therefore, this does look like a wishlist item at best, out-of-scope at worst.
 cc arraybolt3 and tismonq2
 basically i just forwarded this straight from Erick's messages to me here
 he can vouch for it
 oh wow the prosecco is already kicking in xD
 (poor person's champagne)
[00:14]  * lubot [matrix] <eickmeyer> cue political ad
[00:14]  * lubot [matrix] <eickmeyer> My name is Erich Eickmeyer and I approve this message.
 i mean
 I don't care what is done in Ubuntu
 it's outside my purview
 and though I don't care what is done in Debian either, my original thought is "Debian policy recommends not including UNLESS it's needed for something" but if it's not needed yet then the policy is clear to not include it
 esp. if the team is following policy *recommendations*
 so unless Simon is planning packages in Debian in the next few months that require symbols files for interdependency and stuff for building/running i would err on the side of caution and support the team and policy's recommendations currently
 and since SImon hasn't justified himself there yet... :P
 (my core dev recommendations don't have jack of an impact on Debian)
 i don't disagree, but i think that's the logic in their opinion - avoid the issues of also maintaining the file themselves to prevent 'oopsies' again.
 but if Simon wants to take on maintaining the symbols in Ubuntu separately and the Release Team / etc. don't argue that's his option
 eickmeyer: thanks for loaning your opinion too ;)
 arraybolt3: That'd be a Development Lead/Team decision for Lubuntu
 not a Council decision
 i'm in both teams ;)
 so basically you just need kc2bez and guiverc's blessings
 (technically speaking before I was on the COuncil I was an ancillary member of the devel team)
[01:01]  * guiverc is not a developer; thus would likely follow both kc2bez & teward advice with regards packaging/policy (I may try and understand everything, but not having used.... my understanding is less than ideal.. and far less than teward's)
[02:12] <arraybolt3> In the mean time, I think I'll try to work on picom and see how that goes, while also fighting with my Pentium III in the background.
[03:56] <guiverc> I'd prefer advice come from kc2bez, teward or tsimonq2 .   If you don't get a response in time, do it how you think best applies, at worst you'll need to redo it.
[04:54] <guiverc> arraybolt3, given the length of the text in your opinions; I wonder if discourse (development section) would be a better place for your view/post; more readable than irc/matrix/telegram etc..  (also gives an easy place to find it in the future too)
[04:55] <arraybolt3> guiverc: Good point. I don't know if Dan or Simon (or Thomas) monitor Discourse that closely though.
[04:56] <guiverc> you still point them here to it.. (no reason you can't use both or multiple places..)... Discourse also allows end-users of Lubuntu to see the reasoning why Lubuntu doesn't come with a config as well.. not just for 'us' now...  (part of my thinking)
[04:56] <arraybolt3> +1, will copypaste into Discourse in the Development section.
 Compositing by default means the manual will need some changes