On 05/04/13 14:06, Ian Jackson wrote:
Daniel Pocock writes (SI units (was Re: failure to communicate)):
It may actually be useful for the technical committee to review what is
on the wiki and make some general statement about Debian's position (if
they haven't done so in the past
of
I perfectly understand you can be frustrated but, honestly, as of now,
we're focused on the wheezy release, again. Fixing debootstrap has
much more importance than Giga/Gibibytes. Once wheezy is released, I
see no reason for your proposed patch to be rejected.
Sadly, it appears that failure
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 11:26:29AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It may actually be useful for the technical committee to review what is
on the wiki and make some general statement about Debian's position (if
they haven't done so in the past), and that can guide the way similar
bugs are
that failure to communicate was from both sides
Ian was told several times that changes may not be accepted for wheezy
However, that communication was overshadowed by several comments
suggesting nobody cares about the issue at all, rather than comments
like that above explaining the relative
On 04/05/2013 04:43 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote:
Nothing proves that the patches you proposed will be ignored *after*
the release of wheezy.
Christian,
Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can lead
to having partitions not aligned to a 4K boundary, meaning that
your system
Daniel Pocock writes (SI units (was Re: failure to communicate)):
It may actually be useful for the technical committee to review what is
on the wiki and make some general statement about Debian's position (if
they haven't done so in the past), and that can guide the way similar
bugs
On 4 April 2013 20:47, ian_br...@fastmail.net wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 19:09:04 +0200
Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org wrote:
This mail is a very good argument to confirm that overcomplicated
methods to make your point will just fail.
If you have a point to make it, make ti. Once.
Am Freitag, den 05.04.2013, 12:59 +0100 schrieb Dmitrijs Ledkovs:
The default to base-10 units, is good as majority of the installer
deals with HDD drives (not SSD) and not RAM.
SSD manufactures use base-10 units, too. Even 128 GB SSDs have 128 *
10^9 bytes for the users, but 128 * 2^30 bytes
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 07:28:32AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
Can we *PLEASE* stop making new threads. It's getting *REALLY* hard to
keep playing whack-a-mole with my bozo bin.
Fix your mailer… I see precisely one thread, correctly linked together
via message-id and references headers, with
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 07:37:19PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Nothing proves that the patches you proposed will be ignored *after*
the release of wheezy.
Christian,
Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can lead
to having partitions not aligned to a 4K boundary,
On 04/05/2013 10:40 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 07:37:19PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can lead to having
partitions not aligned to a 4K boundary, meaning that your system would be
slow.
If any tools don't
On 04/05/2013 07:59 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
The default to base-10 units, is good as majority of the installer
deals with HDD drives (not SSD) and not RAM.
Come on... it's not! Let's be serious 5 minutes here.
There isn't even a warning about which units are in use.
This fools our users (me
Hi Thomas,
Le vendredi, 5 avril 2013 17.52:19, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
On 04/05/2013 07:59 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
And all of these features will only land for the next cycle
with a release in ~= 2 years time.
I really hope that it wont be the case. That it doesn't go into
Debian
o...@debian.org a écrit :
You want that bug fixed? Great: test the patch, document your tests
I did all that.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=684128#103
gather feedback, get involved
quoting from the above:
I would be interested to hear suggestions as to what sort of
On 04/05/2013 10:40 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 07:37:19PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Nothing proves that the patches you proposed will be ignored *after*
the release of wheezy.
Christian,
Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can lead
to
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 02:50:19AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Nothing proves that the patches you proposed will be ignored *after*
the release of wheezy.
Christian,
Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can lead
to having partitions not aligned to a 4K boundary,
On 04/06/2013 12:16 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Hi Thomas,
Le vendredi, 5 avril 2013 17.52:19, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
On 04/05/2013 07:59 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
And all of these features will only land for the next cycle
with a release in ~= 2 years time.
I really hope that it
[ Not answering all occurrences, things got repeated a few times… ]
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org (06/04/2013):
I've wrote that we should at least address the issue, in a way or
another, through the next point release if that is safer.
It is not.
But, are you seriously proposing that we
Quoting Thomas Goirand (z...@debian.org):
But, are you seriously proposing that we leave the issue as-is ???
Of course. The issue is there since partman exists (about 2005, from
memory) and has probably never prevented anyone to install Debian
since then. So, yes, this issue will still be in
will be categorized as spam and disappear into thin air.
Perhaps there's some new and improved way of convincing people that I'm
just unaware of. If so, tutorial references would be appreciated.
Sorry, but this is only about failure to communicate.
Well, that's certainly clear.
As I said, I've
Quoting ian_br...@fastmail.net (ian_br...@fastmail.net):
If Debian bug report #684128 proves anything, it is that you will never
convince anyone with technical argument, facts advanced in support of
Sorry, but Debian bug #684128 only proves one thing : that we (the D-I
team) were mostly trying
21 matches
Mail list logo
