The Debian project,
based on its Social Contract stating that its priorities are its users
and free software,
recognizing that the AMD64-based architectures are likely to become the
most widespread on personal computers and workstations in a near future,
and acknowledging that its users want to
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> recognizing that the AMD64-based architectures are likely to become the
> most widespread on personal computers and workstations in a near future,
>
> hereby resolves:
Seconded. It's high time to push AMD64 on production.
pgpID
On 2004-07-13 13:43:59 +0100 Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rationale:
I'm sure, in principle, we'd like an amd64 release soon, but this
looks incompletely explained. In particular, your rationale doesn't
give details of your discussions with the release manager, release
assistants,
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Debian project,
>
> based on its Social Contract stating that its priorities are its users
> and free software,
>
> recognizing that the AMD64-based architectures are likely to become the
> most widespread on personal computers and workstations in
Am 13.07.2004 um 14:43 schrieb Josselin Mouette:
The Debian project,
based on its Social Contract stating that its priorities are its users
and free software,
recognizing that the AMD64-based architectures are likely to become the
most widespread on personal computers and workstations in a near
fu
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 14:43 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The Debian project,
*snip*
> hereby resolves:
>
> 1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed "sarge", will
>include the "amd64" architecture, based on the work currently hosted
>at http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.o
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:43:59 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
[...]
>
> hereby resolves:
>
> 1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed "sarge", will
>include the "amd64" architecture, based on the work currently hosted at
>http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/ ;
Could we pleas
On 2004-07-13 14:15:30 +0100 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In particular, your rationale doesn't give details of
your discussions with the release manager, release assistants,
ftpmasters and
technical committee directly.
In particular, what decision is this proposal trying to overrule? Or
i
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Furthermore, the AMD64 architecture is mostly ready. It now builds just
> as many packages as our other release architectures, and it has a
> working installer.
Judging from conversation on debian-glibc, it sounds like AMD64 rea
> I think attempting to force their hand this way is one of the least
> helpful things you could possibly have done.
Perhaps you could suggest a preferable course of action for him to
follow instead.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
On 2004-07-13 15:03:47 +0100 Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps you could suggest a preferable course of action for him to
follow instead.
Perhaps you could summarise what delegate's decision this GR is trying
to overturn, for those of us only seeing this on -vote?
--
MJR/slefMy O
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> recognizing that the AMD64-based architectures are likely to become the
> most widespread on personal computers and workstations in a near future,
Well, this is kind of to strong wording. I'd replace "most widespread"
by "common" - which is important
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed "sarge", will
>include the "amd64" architecture, based on the work currently hosted
>at http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/ ;
I think this is the wrong way to appro
I second joss' proposal about AMD-64 in Sarge. We have, in the past,
released with new architectures. And it becomes more and more
important with every release. AMD-64 is about to revolutionise the
Intel world, and Debian would lose big if it didn't get a seat.
--
Please do not CC me when replyin
Hi,
Am Di, den 13.07.2004 schrieb Josselin Mouette um 14:43:
> Another reason seems to
> be the lack of cooperation of some developers. This resolution intends
> to make everyone cooperate in this direction. Of course, the author of
> this resolution would welcome if the people responsible would j
Josselin Mouette wrote:
>1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed "sarge", will=20
> include the "amd64" architecture, based on the work currently hosted=20
> at http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/ ;
Which point of section 4.1 of the constitution do you believe this falls
unde
When you accused me of interpreting official documents "pedanticaly", I
wondered what you meant exactly with being pedantic.
Thanks for the illustrative example!
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:05:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> >1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:15:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-13 13:43:59 +0100 Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Rationale:
>
> I'm sure, in principle, we'd like an amd64 release soon, but this
> looks incompletely explained. In particular, your rationale doesn't
> give d
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> recognizing that the AMD64-based architectures are likely to become the
> most widespread on personal computers and workstations in a near future,
This is just a speculation. Probably you make this speculation based on
good facts, but I cannot, and pr
It really sucks that we reached this point. But since proper communication has
failed horribly to resolve this, I recognise there's no other way.
Seconded.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The Debian project,
>
> based on its Social Contract stating that its
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:03:47AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> Perhaps you could suggest a preferable course of action for him to
> follow instead.
I think there are several problems that need to be solved.
The big one is that amd64 isn't up on our main site at all. This
obviously need to get fi
Colin Watson wrote:
>Judging from conversation on debian-glibc, it sounds like AMD64 really
>wants to use gcc 3.4, which is not tenable for sarge because it involves
>an API change (see Matthias Klose's recent mail to debian-release and
>debian-glibc). Can you explain how critical this is to the po
On 2004-07-13 16:18:34 +0100 Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The people actualy putting amd64 on hold are ftpmasters. And I don't
think
he can include any discussions with ftpmasters since all the mail
sent to
them on this issue made its way into /dev/null.
OK, so the GR is seeking to ov
On mar, 2004-07-13 at 17:03 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> I see in http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2004/07/msg00034.html a
> reported claim of "up to 2 months" before amd64 can get into the main
> archive. Advocates of this GR should note that the last 4 GRs have
> taken longer than that to be dec
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:05:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> >1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed "sarge", will=20
> > include the "amd64" architecture, based on the work currently hosted=20
> > at http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/ ;
>
On mar, 2004-07-13 at 17:20 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > recognizing that the AMD64-based architectures are likely to become the
> > most widespread on personal computers and workstations in a near future,
>
> This is just a speculation. Probably
Robert Millan wrote:
>When you accused me of interpreting official documents "pedanticaly", I
>wondered what you meant exactly with being pedantic.
Please don't top-post, it makes the baby Jesus cry.
More seriously - the constitution clearly defines what can and can't be
done with GRs. The socia
I second this proposal.
Someone mentioned that my post[0] implies that ftpmaster will be solving
this problem soon. I will believe it when I see it. We tried contacting
ftpmaster for weeks/months? about the issue with no response. The post
was just to state I got a statement out of them finally. f
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:29:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
>
> >When you accused me of interpreting official documents "pedanticaly", I
> >wondered what you meant exactly with being pedantic.
>
> Please don't top-post, it makes the baby Jesus cry.
>
> More seriously
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 11:13 -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:05:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> > >1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed "sarge", will=20
> > > include the "amd64" architecture, based on the work cur
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:36:22AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:03:47AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Perhaps you could suggest a preferable course of action for him to
> > follow instead.
>
> I think there are several problems that need to be solved.
>
> The big one is
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:36:16 -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> I second this proposal.
>
> Someone mentioned that my post[0] implies that ftpmaster will be solving
> this problem soon. I will believe it when I see it. We tried contacting
> ftpmaster for weeks/months? about the issue with no response.
Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:05:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> >1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed "sarge", will=3D20
>> > include the "amd64" architecture, based on the work currently hosted=
>> > at htt
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 05:43:18PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 11:13 -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:05:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > >
> > > Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > >
> > > >1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenam
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:33, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >"3. Override any decision by the Project Leader of a Delegate."
>
> What decision has been made? Has there actually been a rejection of the
> inclusion?
Refusal to act is a decision and a rejection.
> If so, on what grounds was it made? If
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 13:43, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The Debian project,
>
> based on its Social Contract stating that its priorities are its users
> and free software,
>
> recognizing that the AMD64-based architectures are likely to become the
> most widespread on personal computers and works
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:42:03AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > 1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed "sarge", will
> >include the "amd64" architecture, based on the work currently hosted
> >at http://debi
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:31 +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:33, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > >"3. Override any decision by the Project Leader of a Delegate."
> >
> > What decision has been made? Has there actually been a rejection of the
> > inclusion?
>
> Refusal to act i
Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:33, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >"3. Override any decision by the Project Leader of a Delegate."
>>
>> What decision has been made? Has there actually been a rejection of the
>> inclusion?
>
>Refusal to act is a decision and a reje
On 2004-07-13 17:10:38 +0100 Josselin Mouette
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] However, I want to make sure amd64 won't be
dropped because of some random developer at a critical position not
agreeing with that.
I don't think you can really overrule a future decision, however much
you want to. It
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:29:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> (Context for those not on #debian-devel - I suggested that a more
> appropriate mechanism for dealing with this problem would have been for
> private discussion to have taken place in a non-confrontational manner.
> Robert sugges
On 2004-07-13 18:27:58 +0100 Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Several of the points in the GR fall back to the ftpmaster never
communicates and thus there are no emails to quote. [...]
You should still be able to reference some email to ftpmaster cc'd to
a lists.debian.org list or similar,
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:50:05PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> In fact, the constitution specifically allows for people to simply not
> act and there is no way, other than an amendment to the Social Contract,
> to force a group into activity.
If the person in charge doesn't act, someone
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:31:49PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > If so, on what grounds was it made? If the ftp-masters
> > believe that the mirroring issue needs to be dealt with first, I think
> > that attempting to override them would be foolish - we don't want to
> > lose good-will with our
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 08:13:09PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> I remember when I suggested that we should follow clause 1 of the Social
> Contract, this was pedantic for you too. Do you find adherance with official
> documents always pedantic or only when you disagree with them?
Uhm.. well. L
> You should still be able to reference some email to ftpmaster cc'd to
> a lists.debian.org list or similar, IMO. Maybe ftpmaster isn't the
> only group failing to communicate properly with the rest of the
> project?
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=248043
ftp-master would app
#include
* Ingo Juergensmann [Tue, Jul 13 2004, 08:12:22PM]:
> This issue has been raised many, many times before, because part of
> ftp-masters are as well part of DSA as part of wanna-build crew as part of
> .
>
> People in role positions should IMHO be forced to communicate with
> *everyone*
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm sure, in principle, we'd like an amd64 release soon, but this
> looks incompletely explained. In particular, your rationale doesn't
> give details of your discussions with the release manager, release
> assistants, ftpmasters and technical committee directl
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I'm looking for seconds for this proposal, and I hope this can be
> discussed quickly so that it doesn't delay the release for too long.
I won't even consider this proposal until you or someone else explains
to me why we should use the voting system to decide an issue li
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:50:05PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:31 +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:33, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > >"3. Override any decision by the Project Leader of a Delegate."
> > >
> > > What decision has been made?
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 3. that we will include it immediately in the "sid" distribution and
>auto-building infrastructure, and take all appropriate steps so
>that inclusion won't delay the release of "sarge" any further.
The best part about th
Hi,
If anyone thinks this GR will actually achieve anything positive,
they're mistaken.
If anyone thinks that trying to decide technical issues through voting
is a good idea, I pity them.
If anyone thinks that they can insult people as much as they like[0]
and that the people they insult still h
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 21:41, James Troup wrote:
> If you want to help with getting amd64 into the archive...
What, in your opinion, is needed for it to go into the archive?
If we know that, we can indeed help. If this is public information,
please provide a URL.
--
Oliver Elphick
* Matthew Garrett:
>>Refusal to act is a decision and a rejection.
>
> A stated refusal to act would be. An absence of communication is not.
In the long run, it is. If you watched German politics during much of
the 80s and 90s, you would know how far you can get by just ignoring
things, instead
* James Troup:
> If anyone thinks that trying to decide technical issues through voting
> is a good idea, I pity them.
In my eyes, voting on technical issues is still better than no
explicit decision at all. Both options are horrible, but explicit
decisions are still better than implicit ones, n
* James Troup ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> If anyone thinks this GR will actually achieve anything positive,
> they're mistaken.
I'm on the fence about the GR, personally. Not my idea, didn't even
respond when people called for comments on it. Certainly other methods
would be preferred by everyo
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:07:04PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> In my eyes, voting on technical issues is still better than no
> explicit decision at all. Both options are horrible, but explicit
> decisions are still better than implicit ones, no matter how they are
> made.
It's probably worth
Hi martin!
You wrote:
> I second joss' proposal about AMD-64 in Sarge. We have, in the past,
> released with new architectures. And it becomes more and more
> important with every release. AMD-64 is about to revolutionise the
> Intel world, and Debian would lose big if it didn't get a seat.
Well
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:40:29PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Ingo Juergensmann [Tue, Jul 13 2004, 08:12:22PM]:
> > This issue has been raised many, many times before, because part of
> > ftp-masters are as well part of DSA as part of wanna-build crew as part of
> > .
> > People
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:46:06PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:40:29PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > #include
> > * Ingo Juergensmann [Tue, Jul 13 2004, 08:12:22PM]:
>
> > > This issue has been raised many, many times before, because part of
> > > ftp-masters are as
The following is a draft for an amendment to the latest GR; I'd appreciate
comments on it before eventually proposing it:
===
I hereby propose an amendment to the current GR proposal "Release sarge
with amd64":
The Debian project hereby resolves,
That we will not include further architectur
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 22:07, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * James Troup:
>
> > If anyone thinks that trying to decide technical issues through voting
> > is a good idea, I pity them.
>
Surely it is not so much a technical issue as a policy issue? Since
different opinions are being expressed, then in
Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:43:59 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> hereby resolves:
>>
>> 1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed "sarge", will
>>include the "amd64" architecture, based on the work currently hosted at
>>htt
Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Seconded.
>
> Since in the last thread initiated by me I asked for a similar action
> (read: an answer) and nothing happened, I think this is a clear answer
> from FTP masters, saying: WE ARE TO LAZY TO WORK AND TO LEET TO
> COMMUNICATE WITH SECOND-CLASS DDs. WE WANNA BE REMO
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Furthermore, the AMD64 architecture is mostly ready. It now builds just
>> as many packages as our other release architectures, and it has a
>> working installer.
>
> Judging from conv
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:03:31 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe a better GR would be one removing the ftpmasters from their
> position then. This would at least avoid trying to use a GR to make a
> technical decision, and it seems to be the position you're really
> seconding anyway
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 21:32 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:50:05PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:31 +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:33, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > >"3. Override any decision by the Pro
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> If anyone thinks this GR will actually achieve anything positive,
> they're mistaken.
>
> If anyone thinks that trying to decide technical issues through voting
> is a good idea, I pity them.
So what technical issues are there? And please reply wi
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:09 -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:46:06PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:40:29PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > Since in the last thread initiated by me I asked for a similar action
> > > (read: an answer) and nothing
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:25:26AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> The following is a draft for an amendment to the latest GR; I'd appreciate
> comments on it before eventually proposing it:
>
> ===
>
> I hereby propose an amendment to the current GR proposal "Release sarge
> with amd64":
>
On 2004-07-13 22:48:28 +0100 Frank Pennycook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Surely it is not so much a technical issue as a policy issue?
Then someone should explain why it is non-technical. Technical policy
is not normally decided by GR.
Since
different opinions are being expressed, then in a demo
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:38:47AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:25:26AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > The following is a draft for an amendment to the latest GR; I'd appreciate
^
Erm, shit. =)
Anyway, I'm likely to second the proposa
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:46 -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:07:04PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > In my eyes, voting on technical issues is still better than no
> > explicit decision at all. Both options are horrible, but explicit
> > decisions are still better than impl
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:45:56AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Anyway, I'm likely to second the proposal that comes out of this draft.
Just for the reference, I'm inclined to change it into something like "Debian
reaffirms that the decision to include an architecture or not lies with the
RM"...
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 00:25 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> I hereby propose an amendment to the current GR proposal "Release sarge
> with amd64":
>
> The Debian project hereby resolves,
>
> That we will not include further architectures for the next Debian release
> (codenamed 'sarge
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:36:35AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> I really don't see this problem. I have absolutely no problem
> communicating with James, in fact I'm doing so right now. Nothing to do
> with this issue, just two developers communicating with each other.
>
> I strongly susp
Scott James Remnant wrote:
> I strongly suspect there are many others in Debian who also have no
> problems communicating with James.
I've had many pleasant and productive communications with James as
well. Further, I appreciate the work he and the ftpmasters do to keep
Debian working well and no
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 19:12 -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:36:35AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > I really don't see this problem. I have absolutely no problem
> > communicating with James, in fact I'm doing so right now. Nothing to do
> > with this issue, just tw
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 07:12:19PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> Of the people that I have heard comment about James he seems to be
> quite easy to talk to if you have met him in person but otherwise is
> nearly impossible to even get him to respond at all. I am pretty sure
> you fall into the first
Frank Pennycook wrote:
> Surely it is not so much a technical issue as a policy issue? Since
> different opinions are being expressed, then in a democracy it would
> seem valid to decide it by voting.
We don't vote to decide Debian policy, where different opinions are
expressed regularly, we don't
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:26:00AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> James is pretty easy to meet, he's been to the last two Debconfs at
> least. You have to be trying fairly hard to miss him too.
I would love to go to Debconf's however they are always very far away (US)
and thus expensive to a
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:03:31 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe a better GR would be one removing the ftpmasters from their
> > position then. This would at least avoid trying to use a GR to make a
> > technical decision, and it seems to be the pos
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:30:46 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After all, when you start dictating to
> volenteers what jobs to do and how, you risk losing those volenteers.
Yes.
I wonder, did the proposer and the seconders read Constitution 2.1:1.
("Nothing in this constitution impos
On mar, 2004-07-13 at 18:35 +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> However, this GR should not have been necessary. I second it in the
> hope that dropping a sledgehammer on their toes will get the ftpmasters
> to learn to communicate.
Indeed. They've already learned to communicate on how a GR is
inappro
On mar, 2004-07-13 at 21:41 +0100, James Troup wrote:
> If anyone thinks this GR will actually achieve anything positive,
> they're mistaken.
Are you trying to say you would work against the decision of the
majority of developers?
> If anyone thinks that they can insult people as much as they lik
On mar, 2004-07-13 at 12:37 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I agree. If this GR were calling for amd64 to be introduced to sid, I'd
> support it, but I don't think it's right to release it with sarge.
Well, that's what amendments are for.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :
On mer, 2004-07-14 at 04:39 +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> I wonder, did the proposer and the seconders read Constitution 2.1:1.
> ("Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do
> work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which
> has been delegated
> > It's probably worth noting that the dpkg I downloaded as of 5 minutes ago
> > still doesn't support the amd64 architecture. This is a trivial patch,
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:50:29AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> I haven't uploaded one that does yet.
Thanks, that's somewhat informativ
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:07:04PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I suppose most the proposers feel the same. Why they resort to such a
> desperate means is something to think about, IMHO.
Having thought about it, my conclusion is that they are behaving
irrationally.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSC
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:36:35AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > Its a chicken and egg problem, lack of communication creates dissent.
> > Dissent leads to open hosility which you see here. There have been
> > problems wrt James lack of communication for many years, certainly long
> > befo
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 05:18:34PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> The people actualy putting amd64 on hold are ftpmasters. And I don't think
> he can include any discussions with ftpmasters since all the mail sent to
> them on this issue made its way into /dev/null.
Was that before or after the re
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:51:51AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> So what technical issues are there? And please reply with your ftp-master
> hat on. All we hear is "there are issues and ftp-master will post
> something soon" but you never say what.
Consider the situation from their perspec
92 matches
Mail list logo
