Your message dated Fri, 19 Jul 2002 20:16:15 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move into a
separate package
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Nov 2001 02:09:52 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 13 20:09:52 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from cc551902-b.indnpls1.in.home.com (apocalypse.deadbeast.net)
[24.183.211.35]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 163pUu-0007Ah-00; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:09:52 -0600
Received: by apocalypse.deadbeast.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id C5F2442E0; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 21:09:49 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 21:09:49 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move into a separate package
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BOKacYhQ+x31HxR3"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.35
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--BOKacYhQ+x31HxR3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Package: pcmcia-cs
Version: 3.1.29-3
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 12.8.1
cardinfo depends on X shared libraries. Falsifying the package's
dependencies by shifting the shared library dependency on xlibs to a
Suggests isn't good enough.
Please split cardinfo out into a separate package.
To smooth upgrades you could make 2 new packages, say "cardinfo" and
"pcmcia-cardservices" and have pcmcia-cs depend on both of them.
Or you could just have pcmcia-cs Suggest cardinfo and expect people to
install it manually. How exactly you go about complying with Policy
12.8.1 is up to you.
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux apocalypse 2.4.13 #1 Thu Oct 25 03:13:42 EST 2001 i686
Locale: LANG=3DC, LC_CTYPE=3Den_US.iso-8859-1
--=20
G. Branden Robinson | I've made up my mind. Don't try to
Debian GNU/Linux | confuse me with the facts.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Indiana Senator Earl Landgrebe
http://www.deadbeast.net/~branden/ |
--BOKacYhQ+x31HxR3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjvx0m0ACgkQ6kxmHytGonyAIgCgoczBLsgg14/Kn1fFtdKVqNdG
9CYAnRlXZbqTHTJmYRPpi7jvGcXgzBkK
=S0pO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--BOKacYhQ+x31HxR3--
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 119517-close) by bugs.debian.org; 19 Jul 2002 19:16:25 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 19 14:16:25 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk [212.135.138.206] (mail)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 17VdEh-0006lX-00; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:16:19 -0500
Received: from (davenant.greenend.org.uk) [172.18.45.6] (mail)
by chiark.greenend.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1)
id 17VdEd-0004Zv-00 (Debian); Fri, 19 Jul 2002 20:16:16 +0100
Received: from ian by davenant.greenend.org.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1)
id 17VdEd-00055x-00 (Debian); Fri, 19 Jul 2002 20:16:15 +0100
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 20:16:15 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move into a
separate package
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: VM 6.97 under Emacs 19.34.1
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For history of this resolution, see earlier postings on the tech ctte
list. The committee has voted as follows:
Bdale FD, B, A
Ian A, FD, B
Manoj B, FD, A
Wichert A, FD, B
Dale no response
Guy no response
Jason no response
Raul no response
The result of this a tie between A and FD. I hereby use my casting
vote as Chairman to resolve the tie in favour of A. For full details
of how the vote is counted, see below. I'll respond separately to the
points people have made alongside their votes, to try to keep this
this results message as short as it can be.
Therefore, the Technical Committee has passed the following
resolution:
1. It is generally bad for programs to fail due to run-time
linkage failures, in most cases. There may however be other
tradeoffs involved that make this a reasonable choice.
2. In this particular case, splitting the package introduces a level
of administration and other overhead which outweighs the minor
ugliness of the run-time linker error message.
3. We therefore agree with the package maintainer that pcmcia-cs
should remain one package, with cardinfo included.
4. The bug report should be closed with no action.
I am closing the bug report with this message and will update the
committee webpages.
Thanks to everyone for participating and for generally managing to
keep the conversation civilised despite strong feelings (which I think
are fair enough even if I disagree with the content).
Ian.
Vote counting
-------------
Firstly - constitution A.3(1) - we select either A or B as the `most
preferred form' (henceforth P), or choose FD. This is to be done by
the Condorcet method from A.6 (misspelled Concorde in the
constitution).
First, we calculate which options dominate others according to A.6(2):
Ballots A to FD Ian, Wichert
which prefer FD to A Manoj, Bdale neither FD nor A dominates
FD to B Ian, Wichert, Bdale
B to FD Manoj FD dominates B
A to B Ian, Wichert
B to A Manoj, Bdale neither A or B dominates
So according to A.6(3) we eliminate B because it is dominated by FD.
This leaves us with a choice between FD and B, and the ballots have
decayed to A, FD (Wichert, Ian) and FD, A (Manoj, Bdale). This is
a tie, which my casting vote resolves.
(Other interpretations of the counting system have similar results.)
Secondly - constitution A.3(2) - we decide whether the most preferred
form A beats FD by enough to pass. Again, we have the same two pairs
of ballots: Yes, No/FD (Wichert, Ian) and No/FD (Manoj, Bdale).
Again I use my casting vote again to make Yes win.
Thirdly, according to A.6(8) we check for the quorum, which is two
according to 6.3(1). There were at least two votes which prefer the
winning option (A) to the default option (FD), so the quorum is
reached.
--
Ian Jackson, at home. Local/personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
