On Thu, Aug 20 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> In the meantime, I think it's reasonable for ftpmaster to pick the
>> poison that they want to live with between the two ugly solutions
>> that have been put forward. If they think that ia32-libs is less
>> broken in the short term than ia32-libs-tools, I don't want to argue
>> with them, and I don't see a lot of compelling need to have both of
>> them.
>
> Given that at least three of the ctte members have indicated that
> they're unwilling to override the ftpmasters,[1] should we go ahead
> and call for a vote along these lines:
>
> 1. The CTTE declines to override ftpmaster's decision to remove
> ia32-libs-tools.
>
> 2. Further Discussion
>
> or is there additional information which would convince the CTTE to
> override the ftpmasters which we feel wouldn't convince the ftpmasters
> to allow its inclusion?
>
> Don Armstrong
At this point, I must confess that the ia32-libs-tools
inclusion argument does not have the techical underpinnings it needs to
convince me that inclusion would be a net benefit to Debian.
While I am not sure that the rejection of the package, and the
subsequent communication about the underlying reasons from the
viewpoint of the ftp-masters were done as well as they cold have been,
I do not feel that rises to the level that would justify a delegate
override.
I would add a suggestion to the resolution that the CTTE invites
the ftp-masters to share their reasons with the package maintainer, but
otherwise the draft above looks OK.
manoj
--
Life is like a bowl of soup with hairs floating on it. You have to eat
it nevertheless. -- Flaubert
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
