On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Chris Cheney wrote:
> Perhaps you haven't read my emails since the list software ate them?
Likely.
> thing that uses x86_64 exclusively is the _Linux_ kernel. As I mentioned
> in the previous email out of the various os/dist that support the
> x86_64/amd64 arch 8 out of 9 c
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> "May the dpkg and/or apt maintainers select the name of an
> architecture?"
I'd say no to this. Historically the apt/dpkg folk have never done that,
primarily because they have no interest in the architecture name, it is
just a value in
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > 6. We insist that [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be an alias for
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Ok, I just did that.
>
> thanks.
Well, I have made an error in this it seems. The rational for not having
this sort of forward is pretty good. What I w
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Ian Jackson wrote:
Well, I'll deal with some of these, since I can. Some I cannot, at least
not right now:
> 6. We insist that [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be an alias for
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, I just did that.
> 7. We insist that [EMAIL PROTECTED] should either bou
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Well, now there are four of us who've replied so it seems we're not
> going to be lacking in participants, and no-one has criticised my
> draft, so I hereby formally propose the resolution below. If I don't
> hear any objections I'll call for a vote in a
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > [1] We need to make sure we know who is active. Maybe we should have a
> > "show of hands" on who on the committee is actively reading this thread?
>
> I'm here, reading, and thinking. Nothing productive to inject into the
> discussion yet.
Me too,
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> As an example: for SASL (which currently causes breakage encompassing LDAP
> (and through it, glibc nss modules), we would have to force-feed upstream a
> SASL2 enabled source of postfix and sendmail, for example. We would also
> have to dr
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe writes ("Re: Committee members please check you got my test"):
> Perhaps it would be easier just to make [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> an alias for my exploder on chiark ...
Well, if you want that I can also setup [EMAIL PROTEC
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If you want I can update the dist file to your specifications, unless
> > listmaster wants to..
>
> Can you make the archives readable only to the committee ?
Yes, I probably can, if you tell me where the archive you are having
problems is located.
I
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Raul wasn't on -ctte-private, but I'm sending copies of the mails I
> receive to him using my .forward. Manoj also wasn't on the list, but
> hasn't replied to my request to say which email he wants his copies
> sent to, so I haven't done that yet.
Well:
On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If VESAFB is modularised, then you would load it from the initrd just
> like any other essential module. In fact, in future it may become
> the modus operandi with the advent of early us
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:
> So, would everyone else please vote ? If you don't have an opinion or
> don't want to vote, please explicitly abstain. That will shorten the
> voting period due to the `no longer in doubt' rule.
I agree with Ian's assement. So count this as a 'yes' vote
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:
> So, I hereby call for a vote on my earlier proposal to close the bug
> and vote in favour. Here's a copy if you missed it:
I concure.
Jason
On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> AIUI, there are three options: go straight to unstable, use "foo2"
> package names in unstable, or use a staging area. Jeff Waugh objects
> to the first option for good reasons, you object to the second for good
> reasons, and no one has any major probl
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Raul Miller wrote:
> Some of these issues are subtle [for example: sawfish, where there's no
> difference between sawfish in gnome1 vs. gnome2 but there is a difference
> in what libraries it's (dynamically) linked against].
What is the practical consequences of using sawfis
On Sun, 4 Aug 2002, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> There's one aspect of this debate given little attention in
> submissions to the bug report: It is entirely possible that both
> Gnome 1 and Gnome 2 are desirable in the next Debian release.
Er, how many packages are we talking about here?
We have
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think the lack of responsiveness by half of the committee is a big
> problem. It undermines both our legitimacy and effectiveness. It's
> OK for people to be busy occasionally and miss bits of our work. But
> completely disappearing and not answering
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:
> No-one has commented to say they object to us punting on this one, so
> I hereby call for a vote on the resolution I proposed on Monday. If
> anyone votes against, or proposes an amendment, I'll probably withdraw
> the resolution so we can talk about it.
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Are the rest of you there ? Manoj and I have been having an extensive
> discussion about #119517, and about the use of the BTS, and I sent
> round a number of other mails, but there have been no responses.
Didn't feel like sending 'Me Too' emails. I susp
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Eh ? I thought we'd unmoderated the list.
mmm, in that case you are probably looking at old spam that pre-dates
the spamassasin setup. I haven't got any on the ctte list since then..
Jason
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Is there any software on lists.debian.org that could bounce all HTML
> mail sent to debian-ctte ? debian-ctte is getting a hideous amount of
> spam. It's clogging our mailboxes and making the archives unuseable.
Hmm. It seems I'm not getting unmoderate
On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Why is it that Branden and I are the only ones worried about
> us violating copyright law?
I haven't seen anyone say we are violating copyright law, the worst I've
heard is that we have non-DFSG software in main which could mean many
things..
I feel this should be the juristiction of the FTP team to decide what the
appropriate action is.
Clearly, there is no general guideline for when a file already in the
archive should be replaced or erased outside of the the normal processes.
Replacing any file in the archive immediately invalida
On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Because we control the deb and the diff, but we do not control
> the pristine upstream sources, which may have well known
> cryptographic signatures on them outside the scope of Debian to
> affect.
This is a bogus argument. If anything it
24 matches
Mail list logo
