Committee members: can you confirm that you are still willing to be on
the committee, and that you got this message and my other one to
debian-ctte-private ?
Ian.
votes for Dale Scheetz as chairman
>
> Dale Scheetz:
> votes for myself (Raul Miller) as chairman
>
> Guy Maor:
> has not yet voted for a chairman
>
> Ian Jackson:
> has not yet voted for a chairman
>
> Klee Dienes:
> has not yet vote
I'm still not getting them here, which is where I was just told I was
subscribed. Is that because there is no mail ?
I propose the following resolution:
Given that:
* Wichert has made an announcement saying we should preserve the
status quo pending a decision;
* it will obviously take a li
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 09:31:44AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> Before we can decide on the current proposals before us, I believe we need
> to settle the issue of the Chair, so we have a mechanism to call a vote.
No, we don't need a Chair to call for a vote.
A.2:
1. The proposer or a sponsor
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Calling Klee and Guy to vote for the Chair"):
> > Manoj Dwarf
> > RaulDwarf
> Actually, I've voted for both you and me -- I'm most interested
> in getting a chairman quickly.
Raul, can you specify a preference, please ?
Ian.
I have to say that I'm rather unhappy at the tone of Manoj's mails.
For example, the threat to block whatever we come up with seems
unhelpful to me. Manoj, why are you treating us like enemies ?
Aren't we trying to do the right thing together ?
Ian.
Dale Scheetz writes ("Calling Klee and Guy to vote for the Chair"):
> Member Vote
>
> Manoj Dwarf
> RaulDwarf
> Dwarf Raul
> Ian Raul
>
> We need at least one more vote to make this final, and so far neit
It seems to me that Manoj has got the impression I'm trying to make
the `old' FSSTND status quo permanent with my resolution. That's not
the case. I'm just trying to fix the immediate problem to produce
some calm and time for us to consider the transition.
Manoj: you must agree that there is nee
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Away notice"):
> I am going to take some time off from the project. Recent
> developments in the real world have increased the time demands
> that I must face, as well as increasing the stress levels. At the
> same time, the current situations I am involved in i
Raul Miller writes ("ping"):
> We've been inactive for pretty much this entire year. I think this is
> a good thing, but I'd like everyone to just give me a heads up:
>
> [0] Are you still reading this list?
> [1] Do you still want to participate in this
> committee?
Yes.
> [2] Are there issues
Herbert Xu writes ("Re: bug report dispute resolution request"):
> [SuS has] nothing about backtracking when parsing a $(( expression if the
> terminating )) is not found. Indeed, such expressions would be slow to
> parse anyway and should be avoided if the underlying shell supports it.
I agree c
Branden Robinson writes ("bug report dispute resolution request"):
> Had Herbert bothered to pay any attention at all, [...]
> [If Herbert were to downgrade] this bug report to a wishlist item (which,
> given his attitude, [it] would indicate that he has no intention of ever
> addressing it),
> G
I said:
> It's true that the committee has been very inactive, but this is
> largely due to us not having been called on - although we have had had
> a couple of ideas to make ourselves more visible, and it is perhaps
> a failure on our part to get some of those done.
Wichert suggested that we cou
Raul Miller writes ("Bdale Recommendation"):
> I vote to formally recommend Bdale Garbee as a technical
> committee member.
Absolute, I vote in favour of this too. (I've been away in SF and
then to a con, so I've had no access to my home email for about two
weeks.)
Ian.
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bdale Recommendation"):
> Raul Miller writes ("Bdale Recommendation"):
> > I vote to formally recommend Bdale Garbee as a technical
> > committee member.
>
> Absolute, I vote in favour of this too. (I've been away in SF an
Ben Collins writes ("Beefing up the Technical Committee"):
> I'd like to see the Technical Committee play a more active role in the
> project. I'm looking to call on the committee for various reasons within
> the near future.
Excellent, I'm very glad to hear it.
> While I respect all of these peo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Raul Miller writes ("administrivia"):
> Guy and Ian have spoken out in favor of Bdale, but have not signed
> their votes. I'd like both of you to sign your votes.
Fair enough. I vote in favour of Bdale Garbee as Tech Ctte member.
> Also, both of you: you're m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Raul Miller writes ("Call for Votes: recommending Wichert as a committee
member"):
> Ok: I'm calling for votes to formally recommend Wichert as
> a technical committee member.
>
> To cast a vote: please clearly indicate whether you're voting
> for or against th
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Beefing up the Technical Committee"):
> I'm concerned about you not being able to sign messages for a month.
>
> I can either toss the signature requirement on ballots, have you abstain
> until you get things set up, consider the fact that you're able to send
> mail from m
Jaakko Niemi writes ("Re: debian-ctte mailing list: unmoderate, please"):
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Moderation taken off, but posting is still limited to subscribers
> only. If we need to remove that too, let me know.
>
Yes, please. And, your mai
Bdale Garbee writes ("suXscribe"):
>
That proves the list is working, even if Bdale isn't on it, at least :-).
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Firstly, I'd like to apologise to everyone here for not stepping up to
the job of Chairman as quickly as I ought to done. From now on I'm
rearranging my schedule to ensure that I'll read and deal with
tech-ctte mail at least twice a week, which should prove a useful
response time.
So, having said
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.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
Branden Robinson writes ("Technical Committee: decision on #119517?"):
> Over six months ago, on 2001-11-14, Bug #119517 was submitted to the
> Technical Committee for a ruling. No member of the Technical Committe
> has participated in any public discussion of this bug (at least in the
> bug logs
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?"):
> From reviewing the bug report, Ian Jackson sided with the
> maintainer, with the opinion that not all binaries shipped with a
> package need work when the dependencies are satisfied. Dal
I propose to put the following stuff on our web page:
(in no particular order)
* List of members and name of the chairman
* Link to the constitution
* Link to the debian-ctte archives
* Link to the BTS page
* Instructions for how to contact the committee
* What to expect when you contact the comm
Branden Robinson writes ("Re: Processed: yawn"):
> reassign 97671 tech-ctte,xutils
> thanks
>
> Anthony has offered no basis for his latest manipulation of my bug list
> aside from the derisive remark in the Subject:.
>
> I am requesting the Technical Committee's resolution of this dispute
> under
Jason Gunthorpe writes ("Re: Can we reject HTML mail ?"):
> 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'
Manoj Srivastava writes (SuperCite undone):
> Ian Jackson:
> > As I understand it, the supposed principle which is being applied is
> > that it is unacceptable to have a binary in the package which depends
> > on libraries not mentioned in Depends, and that Recommends or
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671"):
> It's not clear to me why tech-ctte discussions seem to not get cc'ed to
> the appropriate bug number properly. See also the discussion for the
> pcmcia-cs bug, much of which happened on the list rather than in the
> bug report.
Bug
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671"):
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 01:34:26AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > But, the idea in the policy manual is that a `must' is a rule for
> > which there are not expected to be exceptions; it doesn't to
So, let me see if I can summarise the core of the dispute:
* Manoj feels that a $PATH executable, ie a shell command, failing
with a run-time linker missing library error (or indeed other startup
failures of a shell command) is a different kind of problem to a
non-working command-line option, menu
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?"):
> I think everyone agrees that it's a Bad Thing to have packages like this,
> the question is really whether it's completely unacceptable to ever do it,
> or if having packages with a single fairly trivial binary and different
Firstly, I just wanted to thank Anthony Towns for his concise and
excellent responses to some of your points. I won't repeat what he
says, but I have this minor point to add ...
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMA
Manoj Srivastava writes (SuperCite undone):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But, I can see that you might want to avoid too much discretion being
> > exercised by bug submitters.
>
> Discretion is not quote how I would describe bug severity
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?"):
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:31:18PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > In this particular case, you got me. In the general case,
> > though, I still think my arguments have merit.
>
> Right, but that's kind-of the point:
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Indeed. I think that this kind of tradeoff between different
> > kinds of costs is best left to the package maintainer.
>
> Unfortunately,
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But, that doesn't mean that the severities need to remain set by
> > those objective criteria. Someone other than the submitter,
> > with
sions. If
you feel that someone has been misbehaving, the committee probably
can't help you much. You may wish to talk to the Project Leader,
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
Membership
The current members of the committee are:
Wichert Akkerman
Bdale Garbee
Jason Gunthorpe
Ian Jackson (chairman)
Guy Maor
Raul
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 2. However, there are circumstances where it is less of a bad thing
> > than the available alternatives, so we can't make a hard and fast r
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.
Please read the discussion, or at least skimread the summaries, and
get involved. The committe
Branden Robinson writes ("Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?"):
> Well, it's been over 7 weeks, by my count (as observed before, sometimes
> my math gets fuzzy when I attempt to work with dates :) ).
>
> Do you have any information or status regarding the pending issues
> before the Com
This discussion makes it clear to me that the decision here is not
technical, it is a question of process. As such it should be made by
the project leadership and/or bug tracking administrators.
I therefore hereby propose the following resolution of the Technical
Committee:
We note that
* Thi
The current state of this seems to be:
* Everyone agrees that it's not ideal for programs to fail in this
way. There is disagreement about whether it should be always strictly
forbidden in every case, or whether there are other tradeoffs
etc. that might justify it. (I can't quite make out whethe
Branden Robinson writes ("Re: developers-reference: patch re: replacing files
on the ftp site"):
> I still think it would be a good idea if the Technical Committee
> documented its decision per 6.3.3.
You are right, of course. However, there are probably better things
we could be doing than goin
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671"):
> I therefore hereby propose the following resolution of the Technical
> Committee:
(Full resolution below.)
No-one has commented to say they object to us punting on this one, so
I hereby call for a vote on the resol
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move
into a separate package"):
> We haven't ever been here before, but it seems to me that the best
> course of action would be to formulate a resolution overruling the
> pcmcia-cs maintainer's
Jason Gunthorpe writes ("Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671"):
> 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
> > anyon
On the 6th of May I wrote:
> Please save as a file called `something.html' and review it and let me
> know what you think. If no-one objects, I'll ask the debian-www team
> to put it on the website as http://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte/.
There were no comments, so I'll talk to the www people.
Wichert Akkerman writes ("Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to
move into a separate package"):
> Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I therefore hereby propose the following two alternative versions of a
> > resolution for this issue:
>
> Can we pleas
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move
into a separate package"):
> For reference, I'm actually with Ian on this issue; I don't see much
> point creating a new package for cardinfo and dealing with the hassle
> of cardinfo disappearing on an apt-get dist-up
The Technical Committee has passed the following resolution, regarding
the dispute surrounding Bug#97671 and the proper use of the Severity
tag and other BTS features:
We note that
* This dispute contains both technical and process (ie political)
elements; however, it has not been poss
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671"):
> The Technical Committee has passed the following resolution, regarding
> the dispute surrounding Bug#97671 and the proper use of the Severity
> tag and other BTS features:
...
>We therefore recommend that
&g
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move
into a separate package"):
> I therefore hereby propose the following two alternative versions of a
> resolution for this issue:
See below for the full text, and my last message for my views.
(Wicher
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move
into a separate package"):
...
> I hereby call for a vote on this resolution.
Just a reminder about the voting period. That CFV of mine was
timestamped by lists.debian.org as:
Received: from chiark.gr
Paolo Risso writes ("EN-IT translator"):
> I'm Paolo, from Genova - Italy. I drop you these few lines in the case you
> need my help for your fantastic project (of course, for free).
...
> I'm a 6 years free-lance translator from English to Italian, [...]
I have forwarded your mail to our Italian
See my call for votes last Friday:
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 19:40:15 +0100
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move into a
separate package
Votes (rankings) [1] so far are:
Ian A, FD, B
Wichert A, FD, B
I w
le).
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.
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671"):
> I still haven't had a chance to properly think about the whole "serious"
> and -policy and whatever issues, so I'm still not making substantive
> comments about this.
Right, well, no-one seems to be telling me what to do, so I'll
re
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to
move into a separate package"):
> Here is my vote, though couched in terms biased the other way:
I'm sorry you didn't like my wording. But, the discussion /was/ about
whether to split the package and whether to
Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: Vote! on supposedly controversial tech ctte question
Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move into a separate package"):
> My reason for wanting further discussion is that I'm willing to let
> the maintainer have some discretion, but believe that it's only
> r
--text follows this line--
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move
into a separate package"):
> For history of this resolution, see earlier postings on the tech ctte
> list. The committee has voted as follows:
>Bdale FD, B, A
>
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Technical committee composition and activity"):
> I am still on the committee?
Yes.
> I'm sorry, I've been completely out of touch with Debian since Februrary.
>
> At the moment: I've moved, I don't have a phone yet, I've got access
> to the machine which was receiving
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Bug#154950: Gnome 2 transition"):
> Christian Marillat is working on conversion scripts, but there's no way
> he can run them automatically because maintainer scripts are not
> supposed to modify the user configuration ...
Why not ? I don't see any reason why a carefull-w
final decision on
technical disputes in the Debian project.
Currently, the active members are:
* Bdale Garbee
* Ian Jackson (chairman)
* Manoj Srivastava
* Raul Miller
* Wichert Akkerman
There are also three inactive members:
* Dale Scheetz
* Guy Maor
* Jason
Jason Gunthorpe writes ("Re: Technical committee composition and activity"):
> FWIW, I wasn't able to get to my PGP key when I had time to make a vote.
> It's been a trying week. Lame excuse..
Oh, hello. Damn, I just sent out my draft with you down as
`inactive'. Do you want to join in again, t
Wichert Akkerman writes ("Re: Bug#154950: Gnome 2 transition"):
> Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Why not [automatically convert users' configs] ?
>
> Lots of nastiness: users might currently be logged in and suddenly
> have files changing underneath them. NFS
Martin Schulze writes ("Re: Draft Call for Applications"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > To: debian-devel-announce
> > Subject: Call for Applications to the Technical Committee
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [..]
> > 1. You have until the 7th of August 2002.
Chris Waters's message implied that the argument was not really about
whether Gnome2 should go into unstable, but whether it should take
over the old package names.
In the past we've used the same package names when it really only
makes sense, as a desirable goal, to have one version installed.
Ty
See my previous mail for discussion. I hereby propose the following
resolution:
The Technical Committee is of the opinion that:
* Gnome1 and Gnome2 can sensibly coexist on installed systems, and
they should not be gratuitously prevented from doing so;
* Gnome1 and Gnome2 should both b
Raul Miller writes ("Bug#154950: Gnome 2 transition"):
> That said: Ian's proposal is incomplete. It only addresses package
> names, and does not address file paths/names for files which are the same
> (or are named the same) in both gnome1 and gnome2.
You're right, and I hereby withdraw the prop
Raul Miller writes ("Bug#154950: Gnome 2 transition"):
> That said: Ian's proposal is incomplete. It only addresses package
> names, and does not address file paths/names for files which are the same
> (or are named the same) in both gnome1 and gnome2.
For executable programs, of course, we can u
fficiently nearly all situations
that it wasn't necessary to provide the old version as an option.
> Le Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:49:14AM +0100, Ian Jackson écrivait:
> > install the Gnome2 from unstable alongside the Gnome1 from stable,
>
> That's not easily doable and nobody ha
Christian Marillat writes ("Bug#154950: Gnome 2 transition"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What other [conflicting] files are involved ?
>
> Pixmaps files, .mo files, documentation files.
These can be put in different directories, surely ?
>
Christian Marillat writes ("Bug#154950: Gnome 2 transition"):
> The pixmaps path is harcoded in gnome libraies, this imply we need to
> recompile all gnome2 applications who use stock gnome pixmaps or store
> pixmaps in /usr/share/pixmaps
That shouldn't be too hard surely ? There must be a single
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Bug#154950: Thoughts on GNOME 2 transition"):
> I urge the technical committee to take a sensible decision (ie one of
> the three solutions proposed in my initial mail) quickly. [...]
You're right that we are taking too long. I'd like to propose that we
hold an IRC meetin
Christian Marillat writes ("Re: Bug#154950: Thoughts on GNOME 2 transition"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm available: [...]
> > Sunday 1st September0900 - 0200
> > Monday 2nd Septemberunavailable
> > Tuesday 3
Anthony Towns writes ("Bug#154950: Thoughts on GNOME 2 transition"):
> Any chance of making it closer to 23:30 UTC? That'd be 9:30 am Monday
> in .au, rather than 1:30 am; and around around 5pm wherever Bdale is. I
> imagine Jeff Waugh's in a similar TZ to me, and I imagine we'd both like
> to sit
Robert McQueen writes ("Bug#154950: Thoughts on GNOME 2 transition"):
> This time is not ideal for myself and other interested GNOME2 type
> maintainery people in the UK, we're at large in Cambridge at that time,
> and not reliably net-connected (ie we may be doing something =).
I'm going to the D
Anthony Towns writes ("Bug#154950: Thoughts on GNOME 2 transition"):
> Is the intention to hold it on #debian-devel or #debian-ctte on
> irc.debian.org or similar?
Reminder: we're having this meeting at 1530 GMT today, about 90 mins
from now. It'll be on #debian-ctte on irc.oftc.net.
Ian.
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Please organize the vote"):
> The committee is about picking between choices which have been adequately
> discussed elsewhere -- the committee is not about designing detailed
> proposals to make these choices work.
Quite.
Jason Gunthorpe writes ("Re: Please organize the v
In the message attached, Dale resigned from the committee. Apologies
to everyone for missing Dale's message the first time round.
This leaves the committee with 7 members, and we're rather short of
active people anyway. I'll dig out my draft call for applications.
Dale, yes, of course you can s
the Debian project.
(See http://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte.)
Currently, the active members are:
* Bdale Garbee
* Ian Jackson (chairman)
* Manoj Srivastava
* Raul Miller
* Wichert Akkerman
* Jason Gunthorpe
There is also one inactive member:
* Guy Maor
We feel that 6 is
e Committee until you have tried to explore the issue yourselves.
When this has been done, the bug report logs should contain detailed
description of the problem and records of your discussions, and you
may then reassign the bug report to the pseudo-package `tech-ctte'.
For more information
And finally, in my barrage today:
Remember that it's not just the chairman who can write up proposed
resolutions, calls for votes, etc. So if I seem to be temporarily
MIA, please do feel free to stick your oars in.
Would it help if we semiofficially nominated a stand-in, who'd pick up
drafting,
Ian Jackson writes ("last call on Draft Call for Applications"):
> I sent a very similar draft to the one below to the committee in
> August. No-one replied with any comments. Do I take it you're all
> happy ? If so I'll send it to d-d-a (after checking that t
Branden Robinson writes ("Re: Disputes between developers - draft guidelines"):
> Overall, it looks great. Thanks for working on this.
>
> I have a few suggestions, raging from stylistic and spelling corrections
> to the more substantive, reflecting my own observations of disputes
> (some of whic
I've just sent a test message to debian-ctte-private. To avoid any
problems with the call for applications that I'm going to send out,
please let me know within the next few days if you didn't get my other
test mail.
Thanks,
Ian.
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Please organize the vote"):
> That's the way it looks to me. I'm very puzzled as to why everyone is
> waiting for the committee to make a decision when in fact there
> doesn't seem to be anything to decide. Who disagrees with the
>
Colin Walters writes ("Re: Gnome (#154950) (was Re: Please organize the vote)"):
> On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 19:59, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Therefore it seems to us that there is no longer a need for a
> > decision by the Committee. The bug report will be closed.
>
&
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Gnome (#154950) (was Re: Please organize the vote)"):
> [Aside: I'm not yet in a position to pgp sign anything.]
That's fine. If you see someone forging your votes, we can phone you
up to check what you really said :-).
Ian.
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Gnome (#154950) (was Re: Please organize the
vote)"):
> Duh. You really do not need to vote just to decide nothing. :-/
> I'm the submitter of the bug, I'm closing it. Problem closed.
Thanks. That obviates the need for the vote, I think.
Ian.
So let me see if I can summarise what the pros and cons are, that have
been mentioned so far:
Pro:
* Some laptop users and certain others who wish to use the console
in better video modes have an easier life, as they can do so with
the stock Debian kernel. How many people would benefit se
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Bug#161931:
kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]"):
> I am not sure the latter follows. Certainly, there is a (small)
> vocal set of users, but popularity is still in question.
Well, certainly it's not decisive, but we're un
Herbert Xu writes ("Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Bug#161931:
kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]"):
...
> Who is supposed to make these decisions about how many people are
> interested? Should I ask you every time this comes up?
If you end up getting into a serious enough dispute about
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Bug#161931:
kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]"):
> [Raul:]
> > I made an earlier comment on that discussion thread:
> > "This is an argument for the kernel architects. We're not kernel
> >architects, however -- we're distr
Raul Miller writes ("Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Bug#161931:
kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]"):
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 01:37:43PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > What I am unsure about is whether I have the grounds to cause
> > my judgment to override the maintainers in
I think all that's going to be said has been said. So I hereby
propose the following resolution and immediately call for a vote.
1. The Technical Committee has considered the question of whether
VESA fb support should be compiled into the default kernel, as
requested in Bug#161931.
2.
My apologies, but I got caught out when an RBL-style blacklist
operator (of a blacklist shut down by a lawsuit threat) decided to
suddenly start blacklisting the whole internet. I thought I was
keeping an eye on the relevant places where such things might be
announced, but apparently not closely e
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Bug#161931: kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for
console"):
> [details of proposal elided]
>
> I think this proposal matches the best information we have available
> and I vote for this proposal.
So, would everyone else please vote ? If you don't have an opinion or
d
1 - 100 of 1197 matches
Mail list logo
