Re: Bug#176506: stalled debconf proposal

2003-02-03 Thread Ola Lundqvist
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 05:10:23PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > As far as I can see, this proposal has one conditional second (from aph > pending an impact study), and some discussion, and has been stalled > since mid-January. It also looks to me, from reading the thread, that > we have an easy conse

Re: Bug#176506: stalled debconf proposal

2003-02-02 Thread Francesco Paolo Lovergine
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 05:10:23PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > As far as I can see, this proposal has one conditional second (from aph > pending an impact study), and some discussion, and has been stalled > since mid-January. It also looks to me, from reading the thread, that > we have an easy conse

Bug#176506: stalled debconf proposal

2003-02-02 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As far as I can see, this proposal has one conditional second (from aph > pending an impact study), and some discussion, and has been stalled > since mid-January. It also looks to me, from reading the thread, that > we have an easy conse

Bug#176506: stalled debconf proposal

2003-02-01 Thread Colin Walters
On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 17:10, Joey Hess wrote: > As far as I can see, this proposal has one conditional second (from aph > pending an impact study), and some discussion, and has been stalled > since mid-January. It also looks to me, from reading the thread, that > we have an easy consensus on just

Bug#176506: stalled debconf proposal

2003-02-01 Thread Joey Hess
As far as I can see, this proposal has one conditional second (from aph pending an impact study), and some discussion, and has been stalled since mid-January. It also looks to me, from reading the thread, that we have an easy consensus on just changing policy to upgrade the suggestion to use debco