Re: Re (2): lilo removal in squeeze / new lilo upstream
hi, this should all be prefaced with the disclaimer that i'm not actually using lilo at the moment, but i thought i'd throw in something due to some of the comments/posturing that i've been seeing here. On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 01:44:05AM +0400, William Pitcock wrote: Have fun. When you have a release that actually has merit, it can be reconsidered for inclusion in Debian. In the meantime, the original plan continues. actually, i don't think you have any say about what software can and can not be in debian, that is the sole privilege of ftp-master. your options are (a) to claim you still want to maintain the package and continue to do so, or (b) ask for its removal by ftp-master. given your comments here i think if you were to claim (a) there would be a decent case for someone to take to the tech-ctte. ftp-master, if they're aware of this argument, may just say why not orphan it instead?. but regardless, if someone else is interested they can just follow that removal with a new upload using their name as Maintainer, and then again it's up to ftp-master to accept or deny it. given that there may be an active upstream and maintainer, and the software is otherwise DFSG-compatible, i don't see why they would deny such a new upload. of course, it would be a lot nicer if you could just hand over the reins of the current package to those who have been asking for them, to avoid some un-needed overhead... sean ~ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re (2): lilo removal in squeeze / new lilo upstream
Russell Coker russ...@coker.com.au wrote on 2010-06-05 22:30: On Wed, 26 May 2010, Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: You're missing the point. The main selling point to management is that Linux is free. If they have to buy new backup software in order to accommodate Linux' backup requirements, that will kill it on the spot. Whatever boot loader I use must not require new backup software or impose special backup requirements. One of the advantages of Linux is that you are not forced to do things the way that the distribution vendor packages it. You can take the last lilo package that gets uploaded, build it and put it in your own apt repository, and then support it for your own users. I see that more people than thought still want to have or need LiLO. Now I have decided to start and reanimate the upstream development. Everyone is invited to join in this development. I'm working on LiLO version 23. Shortly with more informations ... Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Re (2): lilo removal in squeeze / new lilo upstream
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 09:39:59 -0400 (EDT), Joachim Wiedorn wrote: I see that more people than thought still want to have or need LiLO. Now I have decided to start and reanimate the upstream development. Everyone is invited to join in this development. I'm working on LiLO version 23. Shortly with more informations ... Fondest regards, Joachim Wiedorn That's great news, Joachim! If it weren't for my complete ignorance of x86 assembly language, I might have been tempted to try it myself. But perhaps I may be able to help out in some way. We lilo users are very grateful to you for your willingness to take over. By the way, did anyone ever find out what happened to John Coffman? -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1978551454.33.1275845120737.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: Re (2): lilo removal in squeeze / new lilo upstream
Hi, - Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de wrote: Russell Coker russ...@coker.com.au wrote on 2010-06-05 22:30: On Wed, 26 May 2010, Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: You're missing the point. The main selling point to management is that Linux is free. If they have to buy new backup software in order to accommodate Linux' backup requirements, that will kill it on the spot. Whatever boot loader I use must not require new backup software or impose special backup requirements. One of the advantages of Linux is that you are not forced to do things the way that the distribution vendor packages it. You can take the last lilo package that gets uploaded, build it and put it in your own apt repository, and then support it for your own users. I see that more people than thought still want to have or need LiLO. Now I have decided to start and reanimate the upstream development. Everyone is invited to join in this development. I'm working on LiLO version 23. Shortly with more informations ... Have fun. When you have a release that actually has merit, it can be reconsidered for inclusion in Debian. In the meantime, the original plan continues. William -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/28336861.3901275860645697.javamail.r...@ifrit.dereferenced.org
Re: Re (2): lilo removal in squeeze / new lilo upstream
On: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:44:05 -0400 (EDT), William Pitcock wrote: Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de wrote: I see that more people than thought still want to have or need LiLO. Now I have decided to start and reanimate the upstream development. Everyone is invited to join in this development. I'm working on LiLO version 23. Shortly with more informations ... Have fun. When you have a release that actually has merit, it can be reconsidered for inclusion in Debian. What is your definition of merit, William? And why does the current release not have it? In the meantime, the original plan continues. The original plan was based on false assumptions. Why would you continue with a plan based on false assumptions? We now have a release of lilo with (a) an active upstream maintainer, and (b) no release critical bugs. If you simply don't want to be a Debian package maintainer for lilo anymore, why not ask for volunteers to take over for you? -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1545549194.342558.1275871054568.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
