I believe I should be dropped from the committee.
I have not been able to schedule adequate time to research issues,
and this is not likely to change in the near future.
I am willing to stay on, but would very much like to see that
we find someone with more available energy for committee
issues
I apologize for not voting, but while I generally concur with
the voted decision, I have not had time to study any of
our issues in any depth these last couple weeks.
Thanks,
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On 3/12/07, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm -- if it's the RMs' call, I guess that means Andi and I both are
required to abstain from any vote on this (Constitution 6.3.2). Is it still
ok for me to call for a vote? :) (FWIW, as RM the decision I consider to
have made is defer to
It seems to me that four votes in favor and two against is
sufficient for a resolution to pass.
That I personally didn't like that resolution doesn't seem
to me to be sufficient grounds to say it failed.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On 11/24/06, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, what is the issue exactly. I am totally at a loss to understand what it
is exactly what is reproached me, and feel that i am unfairly handled.
I'm going to try to tackle this:
In simplest form, [and limiting the context to Debian] the
On 9/26/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do any of the other TC members disagree?
You seem to be doing a great job on this issue.
I have no current disagreement with you, and see no
reason to expect to have any disagreements with you
as further information is obtained.
--
Raul
On 9/23/06, Bdale Garbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of the arguments I've read and/or can come up with for pushing ndiswrapper
into contrib seem to me to relate to whether ndiswrapper is useful without
some other, probably non-free, software installed on the system. That seems
like a slippery
On 9/21/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In order to claim this as a reason for not excluding the package from main,
yes, absolutely. That doesn't mean the converse is true, though, so we
still need to refine further to decide which side of the line ndiswrapper
belongs on -- so far
On 9/19/06, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know about all of those but there is plenty of Free software
for dosbox and wine. It's not generally in Debian for obvious reasons
but plenty of reasonable uses for those programs involve the user
running only Free software.
Yeah,
On 9/15/06, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
Put differently, I do not understand the distinction between
The purpose of the ndiswrapper package is to provide an ABI layer
on top of the Linux kernel that is compatible with the interface
On 9/14/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 11:58:57AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Every package in contrib must comply with the DFSG ... Examples of
packages which would be included in contrib are: ... wrapper packages
or other sorts of free accessories
On 7/11/06, Bdale Garbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the rest of the committee agrees, then I propose we try this. I'm willing
to retain the position of chair and wrangle the assignments for a while if
that suits everyone?
Fine by me.
There are 6 open bugs against pseudo-package tech-ctte
Conceptually, I should have taken up the chair in June, and should be
stepping down soon.
Obviously, I did not do that.
I see several options on how to proceed:
[1] Skip on to the next candidate.
[2] I pick up rotation starting [soon]
[3] Stick with Bdale
[4] Pick someone else (Ian? Steve?
With paragraph 3 removed or reversed, I would also vote no.
(More specifically: I've not seen any good technical reasons,
yet, to override this commit access decision.)
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/6/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given that we have a very straightforward method of determining what AJ's
intent was (i.e., asking him), I would rather we did that than pass a
resolution that preserves this needless doubt.
This seems like a good idea.
Has AJ been asked, or
I'm not sure what you're asking.
Ideally, I'd like to see three things:
(1) A concise description of the technical conflict that needs to be resolved.
(2) Good background material for understanding any subtle issues
underlying the conflict.
(3) A concise, specific and unambiguous proposal for
On 4/11/06, I wrote:
But I will agree that you did good getting the ndiswrapper
issue wrapped up.
Argh.
I meant to say the devmapper issue wrapped up.
The ndiswrapper issue is still open.
I'm writing a longer message on the status of the ndiswrapper
as I currently understand it.
My
schedule, with the idea that
fall backs should be the next available person from that schedule
is:
2 Bdale Garbee
4 Raul Miller
5 Andreas Barth
6 Ian Jackson
7 Steve Langasek
I'll also say that I do not think you are being negligent for
serving too long.
For
my part, I definitely think
I vote in favor of this resolution on bug #329409.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On 4/6/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm calling for a vote on the following resolution regarding bug #329409.
...
WHEREAS
1. It is a limitation of the current device-mapper implementation in Debian
that
On 4/4/06, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, unfortunately I trust judges to be uninformed enough to have true
randomness in decisions. I personally would think you can't revoke GPL
for a old version, only if you release a new one use a different license
for that, but well...
I
On 4/5/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And for what benefit? Just like the FSF started by
distributing and build software on non-free systems, putting out
software that may initially be more heavily used with non-free
input/output is still desirable, since it is a
On 4/3/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul suggested in
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=342455;msg=15 that policy
should also be amended to spell out the permissions for disk devices -- do
we need to include text here which addresses that directly?
Perhaps the
On 3/29/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does the fact we are boith ignorant mean that the authors and
users of ndiswrapper be penalized?
Yes!
...ok, I don't mean exactly that, but I don't reject it either.
Fundamentally, the only thing that keeps me from releasing a
On 3/28/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 28 Mar 2006, Raul Miller spake thusly:
I think the difference has to do with intent, and expected use
patterns
-- not just at the command line, but in overall terms.
And a related question is: what free software effort would
On 3/27/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Mar 2006, Raul Miller told this:
The ambiguity is in the resolution's interpretation of the quoted
policy:
... must not require a package outside of _main_ for
compilation or execution ...
Does no-operation or substandard
On 3/25/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22 Mar 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:28:50PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why does contrib exist ?
[essay elided.]
So is there an alternate proposal
On 3/23/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:28:50PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why does contrib exist ?
[essay elided.]
So is there an alternate proposal to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte
On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why does contrib exist ?
[essay elided.]
I've been trying to think about this from other points of view, with
the idea of suggesting policy changes that would allow ndiswrapper
to remain in main.
I haven't found any such reasoning which I'm happy
On 3/9/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Technical arguments why ndiswrapper should be in main:
- availability to users with the default sources.list
- availability from within the installer
- availability from the unmodified Debian CD images
Technical arguments why ndiswrapper
On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have overhauled and extended my old draft. See below, and please
comment.
I think you've presented the the issues clearly. However there is
one point that I think warrants more attention:
In our opinion the relevant principle is that:
(i)
On 3/8/06, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes (Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main):
On 3/7/06, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In our opinion the relevant principle is that:
(i) If the user or administrator who is in charge of the Debian
installation
On 3/7/06, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 07:20:31PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Please see http://wiki.debian.org/LinuxKernelIdeProblem that I created
today and have invited the kernel team and udev developers to improve
on.
An assembly of patent ...
It
On 3/3/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that this bug has been (silently) fixed in the latest version
of apt-file. Any objections to reassigning the bug back to apt-file and
closing this issue out?
I agree with you that this appears to be the right action.
If it turns
On 3/2/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With that in mind, policy on contrib says that contrib is for
wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free programs.
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-contrib
And I think ndiswrapper is a sort
On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:15:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Ok, we should probably find a different word to describe this
relationship.
Perhaps it could be phrased that ndiswrapper has a need for the presence
of some software which
On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:42:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
But it doesn't -- ndiswrapper will sit there quite beningly if the
non-free
driver isn't present. It'll do
On 3/1/06, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you responded to my question out of its context... which was trimmed
down due to the 2 subsequent answers. :-/
Ok. And I think a part of the problem has been inexact expression,
where assumptions are important in understanding what a
On 3/1/06, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
The real question was What is the difference for a package if it enables
the user to make use of his own software or his own hardware (whether free
or non-fee) ?
I don't think that's the real
On 3/1/06, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
Let's grant that any moving to contrib will only happing in
unstable/testing
(and future stable) releases of debian.
Do you see a problem with moving these to contrib? After all, everything
On 3/1/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The lack of declared dependencies in ndiswrapper isn't a result of trying
to do an end-run around policy, it's a result of the fact that ndiswrapper
does not *have* a dependency on windows drivers in the sense that can
reasonably be
On 2/27/06, Margarita Manterola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/21/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1 open source windows driver available (can be used with ndiswrapper)
Well, I couldn't find any trace of 1 ever happening. If it ever
happened, then it's ok. But as far as I know
On 2/23/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Up until this evening I was of the opinion that this was the case; then
Anthony presented an analogous scenario on IRC that I found persuasive.
Supposing that lesstif had not been written yet today, and there were no
free packages in Debian
This is my rephrasing of Ian's proposal. Changes:
(*) Emphasize the debian dependency issue.
(*) Emphasize that this is a recommendation, not a command.
Basically, I'm repeating what Ian has already said.
I'm proposing this as a votable option.
Thanks,
--
Raul
WHEREAS
1. ndiswrapper's
On 2/22/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:07:22PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
If you believe that, then the whole thing is going to be far too much
hassle. We can't be having a faffy voting election thing every month
or two just to routinely elect the
On 2/21/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Augh, we just agreed on a rotation, why a new one now? Downside to the
above: it schedules newbies and oldbies together rather than interspersing
them (Me then Andy; Bdale then Ian).
Because the dates on the original proposal were already
On 2/21/06, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller writes (Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main):
It looks to me as if the sequence of events was:
1 open source windows driver available (can be used with ndiswrapper)
2 someone ports windows driver to linux
3 linux driver available
On 2/20/06, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I requested that ndiswrapper and ndiswrapper-modules-i386 be moved to contrib.
This proposal is clear enough.
My reasons are:
- The sole purpose of these packages is allowing the use of non-free Windows
drivers.
- There are no free
On 2/10/06, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:40:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Otherwise, having access to the underlying block devices means having access
to meddle with anything on the LVM devices as well.
And who says that anyone have access to the
On 2/10/06, Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did read this, and I'm happy progress is being made. However, the
default is still currently wrong in unstable, and the fix is a simple
change to configure in debian/rules.
I agree that the devmapper default should match other
debian
On 2/10/06, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] channelled:
The proposed change to devmapper changes the permissions for all block
devices, doesn't it ? Whereas the other debian defaults vary from one
kind of device to another. For example, floppies are g+w floppy.
The change to devmapper is
On 2/7/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to contradict 6.1.7 of the constitution as written to have an
automatically rotating chair, however. Are we amending the constitution (no
way to get that done by the 15th), or is this just an informal agreement for
each chair to
On 2/6/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:33:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/6/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
I was thinking along the lines of rules of order, which isn't much
different from advertising a guideline
more fairly.
I propose we do this, and for concreteness propose the following rotation:
- Feb 14th Ian Jackson
Feb 15th - Mar 31st Steve Langasek
Apr 1st - May 31st Bdale Garbee
Jun 1st - Jul 31st Anthony Towns
Aug 1st - Sep 30th Raul Miller
Oct 1st - Nov
On 2/2/06, Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's nearly a month since the last mail to this bug. Is this getting
close to being resolved?
Did you notice the content of the message before yours in this bug's
history? It's from Bastian Blank, and includes among other things the
statement:
On 1/3/06, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(AFAICT, for example, if the permissions have been configured locally
somehow to be something like 0600 the configure option would result in
a brief moment of 0660, which might be a security problem.)
Wouldn't that only be the case if
(a)
On 12/27/05, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With bdale voting yes, along with me, and there being no
responses for a week, the quorumn of two was met, and the motion
passes.
My apologies, I should have realized this was a new issue that
needed to be voted on.
Belatedly: I
On 12/23/05, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, what are the problems with a default of 666? It fixes any
of the problems.
Is this a serious question?
Access to group disk can be easily controlled by the
system administrator. On some systems, only root
has this access, on other
On 12/17/05, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:43:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 12/16/05, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:54:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Are you saying that the current default permissions on (eg
On 12/16/05, Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:54:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Are you saying that the current default permissions on (eg) /dev/hda*
are insecure and therefore wrong ?
Yes, I overwrite them on my machines.
And what is your reason for being
I've been looking at these bugs, and I can see no good reason for the 600
permissions, nor the reason to avoid using the disk group.
There also seems to be some huge confusion about where responsibility for
setting permissions and group should be handled.
Here's what I currently see suggested:
On 8/14/05, Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
reassign -1 tech-ctte
Bug#323035: libslc violates library policies
Bug reassigned from package `libsilc' to `tech-ctte'.
It's not clear to me why this was assigned to the technical committee.
There's definitely some issues here.
On 6/12/05, Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Honestly, I'm having hard times to make my own mind and I need help
and wise advice on that issue. I personnally tend to favor the
current choice of only one prompt, but this is definitely not a strong
position.
Is this true even after
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 02:05:10AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
The claimed basis for not wanting my uploads were technical.
If that's the case, you failed to relay this information.
You said:
. The sparc buildd maintainer insisted that I stop doing so, claiming
. that I was causing problems
I'm sending this message as a test message, because my MDA has been
changed, and I want to make sure I still get committee email.
I'd like to also take this opportunity to make a few observations about
the committee:
The committee has never been popular. People have objected to its
actions, its
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 11:04:47AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Debian buildds. So just doctoring around a failure on a buildd by
building it in a different environment is not healthy in the long run
because we need to make sure that the buildd is capable of building
every package.
On
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 10:06:48AM +1000, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
This vote call is 7 weeks old. May the debian-ctte members vote Ian's
proposal, please.
I've read http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2004/09/msg6.html
already. I think, we need the debian-ctte's opinion on this
I vote in favor of this resolution.
--
Raul
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 11:32:01AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
(I accidentally failed to send my last message to the committee list.
My apologies! Here is a slightly edited version, taking into account
a correction from Steinar.)
It looks like
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:22:44PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
I think you've missed a point here (all times converted to UTC):
2004-08-19 11:38: #266837 gets filed as a serious bug against rpvm.
2004-08-19 21:26: Dirk reassigns #266837 to pvm.
2004-08-19 21:30: I set #266837 to
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 04:37:49PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Please see #266762 for any discussion on this.
Can you explain why a Policy violation (i.e. not providing shared
libs for a -dev package) is of Severity: wishlist
Again, see #266762.
esp. in the context of repeated FTBFS
[Personally, I've been pretty busy the last few weeks and expect to
remain busy for a few more (two weekends ago, it was work, but since
then it's been unexpected family obligations). However, I've a free
couple hours at the moment...]
Currently, we've been asked to makes some decisions about
Is it acceptable to everyone if the technical committee tacitly approves
the current release policy?
[Which is to say -- we've seen it, we've not raised any significant
reasons to change any of it, so we're opting for the default which is
that it's ok.]
?
Thanks,
--
Raul
I'm thinking we should ratify it, as is. As soon as possible.
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 04:31:08PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Gads, do we really need to ratify the entire text of this document ?
We don't need to. But, why not? That's what was delegated to us.
If anything, it may be that that
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 02:16:50AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Uh, can we have something more descriptive than just the current
release policy,
That's no problem, we could quote the specific document.
and avoid dictating mechanism (sarge-ignore) rather than just policy?
Well, it's impossible
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 09:36:20PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I'm not sure whether the transition guide document was useful, but I'm
convinced it wasn't a good thing to have as part of the social
contract, entrenched so that only a 3:1 general resolution can change
it !
How else can you have a
Raul Miller writes (releasing sarge):
We ratify the current release policy with the additional note that dfsg
issues which would have been ignored before GR 2004-003 shall be tagged
sarge-ignore.
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 09:39:35PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Um, yes. (We should wait
http://seehuhn.de/comp/GR2004-004.html
Seems to indicate that option B is likely to win.
Given that the old release policy was implicitly based
on an ambiguous interpretation of the social contract,
and given that the release manager has asked us to take
a hand in deciding about release
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 12:20:44PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Amusingly I encountered a SPF filter for the first time this week: a
mailserver rejected an email from declaring it was spoofed. Only it
didn't see that the mailserver that contact it was only relaying the
message and was not
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 08:57:59PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.18.html#subj10
I have reason to believe that Steven Bellovin's criticisms are being taken
seriously -- it's possible that future SPF drafts will have addressed
all of his concerns.
That said, I think
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:49:05AM +1000, Pascal Hakim wrote:
I've seen figures as high as 85% of email to Debian lists being spam
talked about. No more than 1% of that hits my inbox. That's impressive.
Spam mails fake headers anyway, a c-r system would not stop the spam,
it would just make
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 03:45:56AM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote:
It would make a lot more sence to throw the hardware at spam-filtering
algorythims are already known to work and don't cause hassles to the
mail senders.
Hardware isn't application specific.
I agree that 99.99% accurate spam
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 03:17:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 01:07:54 +0100, Ian Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* In our opinion the porting team are the right people to be
deciding on the architecture name, in general.
* In our opinion there is no
Here's the main issues as I see them:
[1] Existing body of work/historical precedence -- we've already got
a bunch of packages with amd64 in the name and a dpkg with x86-64
hardcoded in it (specifically, in dpkg-architecture.pl in the hash
%archtable we have the key x86-64 and the value
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 08:56:31PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
There are other heuristics in place to fight SPAM on the Debian lists
already. I'm on quite a few of them and I see an occational SPAM, but
not much, really. I've also got my own spam-filtering in place, of
course, which I
Raul Miller writes (Re: (forw) [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Posting on the list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: md5sum FILE produces spurious ` -' in output]]):
I can probably live with things the way they are now, as far as spam
filtering.
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 09:59:59PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge):
I think we should not interfere in whatever solution the
developers come up with, since we are not actually involved as a
group in the solution process.
Note that we as a group haven't formally agreeded to do this.
I vote yes to this resolution.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 06:19:10PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes (Proposed resolution Re: md5sum FILE produces spurious `
-' in output):
Well, now there are four of us who've replied so it seems we're not
going to be lacking
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 12:53:41AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
IME people nearly always put FD ahead of the options they disagree
with.
However, it's possible for people to think that two options
are acceptable, even though they have a distinct preference
for one over the other.
--
Raul
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:08:01AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Raul Miller writes (Re: md5sum FILE produces spurious ` -' in output):
I do wish we has a better way of saying request (or require [if we have
sufficient supermajority]).
Perhaps we should just write `require' in draft
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:32:24AM -0700, Guy Maor wrote:
I agree that the version without the - is more useful, but I'm not
completely convinced that the coreutils maintainer should change it.
If it's already been changed several times, then I see no
reason why it should not be changed.
What
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:56:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
* I claim that the annotated behaviour is inferior, for two reasons:
Firstly, it is less convenient. When md5sum is used in scripts and
the like, it is significantly easier to use if a script can get it
not to annotate
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 04:45:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I'd fallen off the committee list (again).
I was off the list myself, until recently -- someone else noticed
(unfortunately, I forget who and haven't been able to find the relevant
email message) and had my subscription reinstated.
--
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 04:53:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=sarge-ignore
I started working through this list, but its sheer size is intimidating
-- I don't think I can come up with any point-by-point solution to all
these problems in the next
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 02:15:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Dear technical ctte, if you are able to come to a conclusion on this
topic, please make a decision as to whether the social contract requires
non-free documentation, firmware, etc to be removed from main before
release.
So...
[Note: I've removed aj from the explicit followups to honor the
Mail-Followup-To: headers on his message.]
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 02:52:27AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The key questions to my mind are:
* are there any other possible release policies on this issue
(than delay
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 02:15:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Dear technical ctte, if you are able to come to a conclusion on this
topic, please make a decision as to whether the social contract requires
non-free documentation, firmware, etc to be removed from main before
release.
Do you
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:15:00 -0500 (EST), Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The proposal in bug #166718 and the bugs merged with it is for the
initial user to be added to some set of groups. Karl does not like
this proposal because it only solves the problem for the initial
user. That's
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 10:19:42PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
Agreed. Traditionally, however, Unix has not been in the practice of
being easy to use. We should be careful, not hidebound.
That depends.
Once upon a time, security wasn't much of an issue, and ease of use for
the casual user was
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-11-11 18:05]:
What's so hard about using apt to search for packages with the
dependency, emailing those package maintainers?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:28:04PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
Both dpkg and textutils are essential, and there is no md5sum
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 05:52:08PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
2. We have concluded that
* md5sum is significantly more useful if there is a way to
produce the `bare' output format (ie, without trailing ` -').
Hmm.. sorry, I let this one slip by me.
What breaks? [An understanding
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 01:37:43PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What I am unsure about is whether I have the grounds to cause
my judgment to override the maintainers in this case. I don't have
the hubris to assume that I know so much better than the maintainer.
I think we can trust
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
