* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [071206 20:08]:
> For the avoidance of any doubt, I don't think that decisions of the TC
> should be interpreted as overruling the maintainer unless that is the
> only possible interpretation of the resolution's text.
>
> In the past it has always been clearly sta
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Call for Votes (Re: mixmaster /etc/default/*)"):
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:13:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > [1] Choice K: Keep current behaviour and existing policy, as above.
> > [2] Choice F: Further discussion
>
> I agree
Andreas Barth writes ("Re: Call for Votes (Re: mixmaster /etc/default/*)"):
> I assume the voting means "we are not overriding the maintainer", i.e.
> this vote doesn't restrict the right of the maintainer to adjust the
> behaviour as he considers appropriate.
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Call for Votes (Re: mixmaster /etc/default/*)"):
> This bug hasn't been reassigned to the committee so we don't have any
> business ruling on it.
?
That seems to be an oversight on the part of the petitioner.
For the record, I agree with ev
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [071202 23:14]:
> -8<-
>
> (1) The REMAIL option should not be supplanted or supplemented by
> anything in an /etc/default file. The current behaviour of the
> mixmaster init script, to examine /etc/mixmaster/remailer.conf's
> REMAIL option, is c
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:13:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> -8<-
> (1) The REMAIL option should not be supplanted or supplemented by
> anything in an /etc/default file. The current behaviour of the
> mixmaster init script, to examine /etc/mixmaster/remailer.conf's
> REMAIL opt
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:13:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> (1) The REMAIL option should not be supplanted or supplemented by
> anything in an /etc/default file. The current behaviour of the
> mixmaster init script, to examine /etc/mixmaster/remailer.conf's
> REMAIL option, is c
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 22:13:38 +, Ian Jackson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I hereby call for a vote on the resolution below, which I sent round a
> draft of on Friday and formally proposed yesterday:
-8> -
> (1) The REMAIL option should not be supplanted or supplemented by
> anything in
I hereby call for a vote on the resolution below, which I sent round a
draft of on Friday and formally proposed yesterday:
-8<-
(1) The REMAIL option should not be supplanted or supplemented by
anything in an /etc/default file. The current behaviour of the
mixmaster init script, to e
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: mixmaster /etc/default/*"):
> No, I'm saying that we shouldn't be in the business of reviewing every
> disagreement in Debian. And we certainly shouldn't leave the decision
> as to whether we'll review any particular decision solel
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 02:37:43AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > No it doesn't, it just requires not noticing an issue -- eg, by it
> > not being brought to the tech ctte's attention at all (most
> > decisions in Debian), or by the tech ctte missing it when it is
> > (429761, 439006), or by the t
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 07:38:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Having read the bug report I don't think there is very much to be said
> in favour of the submitter's point of view.
> Here is a draft resolution and rationale.
> -8<-
> (1) The REMAIL option should not be supplanted or supplemente
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 06:40:36PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Deciding that an issue isn't important enough to make a decision
> > requires making some sort of decision.
>
> No it doesn't, it just requires not noticing an issue -- eg, by it
> not b
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 06:40:36PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Deciding that an issue isn't important enough to make a decision
> requires making some sort of decision.
No it doesn't, it just requires not noticing an issue -- eg, by it not
being brought to the tech ctte's attention at all (most
On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 06:19:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: mixmaster /etc/default/*"):
> > This is exactly the sort of thing I think we should simply ignore rather
> > than issue any sort of ruling on. It's simply not important enough
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: mixmaster /etc/default/*"):
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: mixmaster /etc/default/*"):
> > This is exactly the sort of thing I think we should simply ignore rather
> > than issue any sort of ruling on. It's simply not important enoug
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: mixmaster /etc/default/*"):
> This is exactly the sort of thing I think we should simply ignore rather
> than issue any sort of ruling on. It's simply not important enough to
> be an issue. ie, unless someone on the tech ctte wants to champion th
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 07:38:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Having read the bug report I don't think there is very much to be said
> > in favour of the submitter's point of view.
>
> This is exactly the sort of thing I think we should simply ignore
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 07:38:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Having read the bug report I don't think there is very much to be said
> in favour of the submitter's point of view.
This is exactly the sort of thing I think we should simply ignore rather
than issue any sort of ruling on. It's simply
19 matches
Mail list logo
