On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Venkatesh Pawar wrote:
> I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for
> some operation purpose. So can you please tell me from where should i
> download source code of debian lenny os. It will be great help if uou help
>
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:04:29AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Fri, December 13, 2013 09:44, Venkatesh Pawar wrote:
> > I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for
> > some operation purpose.
>
> You can put the following in your so
Hi Venkatesh,
On Fri, December 13, 2013 09:44, Venkatesh Pawar wrote:
> I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for
> some operation purpose. So can you please tell me from where should i
> download source code of debian lenny os. It will be great help if
Hi Sir,
I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for
some operation purpose. So can you please tell me from where should i
download source code of debian lenny os. It will be great help if uou help
me.
Thanking you,
Venkatesh Pawar.
* 2010-08-06 14:42 (+0530), Syed Ahsan Ishtiaque wrote:
> I was searching for Debian Lenny 5.03 CD/DVD in your website, but
> couldn't find any. Can you please redirect me to appropriate link from
> where I can download Debian Lenny 5.03 iso.
The latest Debian Lenny release (or
Hi,
I was searching for Debian Lenny 5.03 CD/DVD in your website, but couldn't
find any. Can you please redirect me to appropriate link from where I can
download Debian Lenny 5.03 iso.
Thank You.
Regards,
Syed Ahsan Ishtiaque
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 05:02:50AM +, brendon fernandes wrote:
> Dear Sir,
> I am Brendon from India and have a problem regarding the internet connection
> in
> debian 5.03 lenny,I tried using network manager in Gnome version but I really
> can get to the exact point.when I
Dear Sir,
I am
Brendon from India
and have a problem regarding the internet connection in debian 5.03 lenny,I
tried using network manager in Gnome version but I really can get to the exact
point.when
I try using it by putting in the provider username and the password nothing
helps.
I
Dear all,
The votes around the Lenny release revealed some disagreements around the
constitution, DFSG, supermajority requirements and what people think is
'obvious'. What I would like to do is clarify some of these before they come up
again. To avoid overloading -project I'd l
Am 2009-02-15 00:08:44, schrieb Martin Meredith:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > <49862854.1070...@googlemail.com>
>
> I so need to write a function that'll let me search my mails in mutt based on
> message id :D
??? -- You are using mutt!
~B 4986285
Firstly, Yay Release [0]!!!
Congrats to everyone, and particular to those people who have been up
all night making this happen.
Since Lenny has now been released I just wanted to briefly touch on the
discussions which were postponed, so people know they are not being
forgotten. As dato said[1
Hi!
Martin Meredith schrieb:
>> / i~49862854.1070...@googlemail.com
>> See http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-4.html#ss4.2 for details.
> Which I believe only searches in the current folder, so it's not exactly that
> useful.
Take a look at the grepmail package. IIRC it can do what you ask
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 04:48:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Martin Meredith wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > > Gebhardt Thomas (10/02/2009):
> > > > just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be a
> >
* Don Armstrong [Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:48:16 -0800]:
> / i~49862854.1070...@googlemail.com
(~i, not i~, as can be seen in the manual URL that was included.)
> See http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-4.html#ss4.2 for details.
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.c
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Martin Meredith wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Gebhardt Thomas (10/02/2009):
> > > just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be a
> > > release date that is easy to remember.
> >
> > <49862854.1070...@goog
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Gebhardt Thomas (10/02/2009):
> > just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be a
> > release date that is easy to remember.
>
> <49862854.1070...@googlemail.com>
I so need to write a function that'll let me
Hi,
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 20:04, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
> In [2]:datetime.datetime.utcfromtimestamp(1234567890)
> Out[2]:datetime.datetime(2009, 2, 13, 23, 31, 30)
>
> Seems about half an hour before the 14th.
oh, indead. I accidentally used local time. That's a pity!
Thanks, Thomas
--
Luk Claes schrieb:
>> Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 Lenny to Thiemo Seufer, a Debian
>> Developer who died on December 26th, 2008 in a tragic car accident.
> There seems to be a part of the sentence missing...
Thanks, fixed.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
===
Dedication
Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 Lenny to Thiemo Seufer, a Debian
Developer who
died on December 26th, 2008 in a tragic car accident.
There seems to be a part of the sentence missing...
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ
recent
> version from
> http://svn.schmehl.info/svn/debian-publicity/20090214-lenny-release/lenny-announcement.en.wml
> ; translators might later be interested in
> http://svn.schmehl.info/websvn/listing.php?repname=debian-publicity&path=%2F20090214-lenny-release%2F&rev=0&sc=0
>
On 2009-02-10 20:54, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> What about:
>
> ... and more than 23,000 other packages ready to use software packages
> (build from over 12,000 source packages).
Perfect!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 08:54:02PM +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Hi!
>
> W. Martin Borgert schrieb:
>
> > It's difficult to change all occurrences at the same time. Why
> > not start with the release announcement and explicitly say 1x000
> > *source* packages? Let's change it in other
W. Martin Borgert (10/02/2009):
> On 2009-02-10 20:54, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> > What about:
> >
> > ... and more than 23,000 other packages ready to use software packages
> > (build from over 12,000 source packages).
built?
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi!
W. Martin Borgert schrieb:
> It's difficult to change all occurrences at the same time. Why
> not start with the release announcement and explicitly say 1x000
> *source* packages? Let's change it in other documents/pages when
> we're at them. Counting binary packages feels a little bit like
>
On 2009-02-10 18:50, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Yes the 23'000 are the binary packages for i386. Oh, I better correct that
> to 22'000 to reflect other archs, too.
>
> I took the number of binary packages, because we usually take the number of
> binary packages. It was in the last announc
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:04:21PM +0100, Gebhardt Thomas wrote:
> just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be
> a release date that is easy to remember.
f...@laurie:~$ ipython
In [1]:import datetime
In [2]:datetime.datetime.utcfromtimestamp(1234567890)
Out[2]:datetime.da
Hi Gunnar!
Gunnar Wolf schrieb:
>>
>
> Umh... This paragraph seems to clump together very disparate
> concepts. Yes, they are installer-related - Maybe it should be
> rephrased +- this way:
[..]
> Now, Etch already included the out-of-the-box encryption support - I
> wrote an article on Februar
are packages.
>
> I don't know about the 23,000 figure. It is binary package based, and
> I'm not sure if that's really fair, because splitting an upstream into
> different .debs is after all an artifact of the distribution. (FWIW
> there are around 12,500 source packag
Gebhardt Thomas (10/02/2009):
> just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be a
> release date that is easy to remember.
<49862854.1070...@googlemail.com>
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be
a release date that is easy to remember.
Cheers, Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
* Gunnar Wolf:
> Now, Etch already included the out-of-the-box encryption support - I
> wrote an article on February 2007 specifically talking about this
> feature. I agree with announcing the graphical interface here, as it
> was hidden by default, but AFAIK the crypto part was already there (of
Steve Langasek wrote:
>> The preferred tool is aptitude.
>
> This is not a matter for you to decide by fiat. The tools recommended in
> the release notes should be the ones that work most reliably for
> dist-upgrading from the previous release. Based on various upgrade reports
> I've seen over t
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:07:28PM +0200, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Adeodato Simó writes:
> >>> Upgrades [… are automatically handled by the aptitude package
> >>> management tool for most configurations, and to a certain degree
> >>> also by the apt-get package managemen
Ben Finney wrote:
> Adeodato Simó writes:
>
>>> Upgrades [… are automatically handled by the aptitude package
>>> management tool for most configurations, and to a certain degree
>>> also by the apt-get package management tool.
>> This should be consistent with the Release Notes. I haven't been
>
Adeodato Simó writes:
> > Upgrades [… are automatically handled by the aptitude package
> > management tool for most configurations, and to a certain degree
> > also by the apt-get package management tool.
>
> This should be consistent with the Release Notes. I haven't been
> tracking the releva
eryone is aware of
> the current state ]
>
>
> Hi!
>
> Attached you'll find the current draft of the announcement for the lenny
> release. Based upon the announcement for the last release it's far from
> ready :(
Maybe add a new about all the fancy games that
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl dijo [Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:15:23AM +0100]:
> (...)
>
Umh... This paragraph seems to clump together very disparate
concepts. Yes, they are installer-related - Maybe it should be
rephrased +- this way:
The installer for Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 has received a major
On Monday 09 February 2009 13:19:06 Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Support for Macromedias Flash format is available via the swfdec plugin.
>
> Should Gnash be mentioned here? Is it ready for such a high profile
> mention? (Maintainers Bcc'ed.)
I believe this would have to be (replace (R) with the regis
23,000 figure. It is binary package based, and
I'm not sure if that's really fair, because splitting an upstream into
different .debs is after all an artifact of the distribution. (FWIW
there are around 12,500 source packages in Lenny.)
In any case, I'm happy to leave this issue
[ Sorry for the cross post; just trying to make sure everyone is aware of
the current state ]
Hi!
Attached you'll find the current draft of the announcement for the lenny
release. Based upon the announcement for the last release it's far from
ready :(
Especially the second
On Mon Jan 19 14:19, tamas.garamsz...@polimerieuropa.com wrote:
> When will be the Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 "Lenny" distribution release
> available?
As Martin says, there are still bugs we are trying to squash. The main
blocker, however, is the next RC of the installer, which is w
Hi,
On Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 14:19:28 +0100, tamas.garamsz...@polimerieuropa.com
wrote:
> Dear Debian Team!
>
> When will be the Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 "Lenny" distribution release
> available?
"When it's ready". :-)
There are currently 101 release critical
Dear Debian Team!
When will be the Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 "Lenny" distribution release
available?
Thank you for your answer.
Best regards:
Garamszegi Tamás
y).
Save your soap/acid/whatever intended for such brainwash: Dependencies
of X11-related libraries have now been fixed to no longer pull in
excessive amounts of irrelevant packages when linking against libxpm,
and I already intend to drop the noxpm flavor. After Lenny.
Odd that you consider
Le Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 05:39:47PM +0100, Adeodato Simó a écrit :
>
> I suggested the creation of the DiscussionsAfterLenny wiki page a while
> ago.
Hi Adeodato,
this is an excellent idea!
Although top-down approaches are not really in Debian culture, since the
paragraph 5.9 of our constitution
Robert Millan wrote:
> OTOH, if you just tell me to "go elsewhere", I'm sorry but I don't want to
> look the other way while the project destroys its reputation for having a
> commitment to freedom, a democratic system and a set of principles.
The only one who works on destroying the project at t
Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]:
>
>> Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
>> think, and hold another vote.
>
> Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-(
>
> Proposal: hand Robert Millan
On Tue Jan 13 20:50, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We have a number of constitutional proposals:
>
> - Require Secretary to include position statement URLs in ballots
> - Require Secretary to assist people with ballot drafting and
>empower Secretary to briefly delay votes to do so
> -
Adeodato Simó writes ("Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?"):
> It seems we have a number of projet-wide discussions that we've more or
> less agreed to postpone until lenny is out. I have a moderate fear that
> once that happens, they are going to explode (t
Robert Millan writes ("Re: Results of the Lenny release GR"):
> Actually, I accept the outcome of the last vote. I don't like that we made
> an exception for firmware, but the developers chose to make one so there's no
> point in arguing about it.
>
> On
On Tue Jan 13 17:39, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> So, I'm interested in knowing if people would be fine with making a list
> of these "big issues" we have to discuss, and trying to give them
> "slots", as in putting them in some order that makes sense. Also, IMHO,
> having one or two (per-topic) people "
Hm.
It seems we have a number of projet-wide discussions that we've more or
less agreed to postpone until lenny is out. I have a moderate fear that
once that happens, they are going to explode (the discussions) all over
the lists.
I suggested the creation of the DiscussionsAfterLenny wiki p
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35:22AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back
> as soon as that happens and start working on what is left to fix then?
> (Not right before a release, right after a release for a change.)
>
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:37:28PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > We're having a serious discussion, and you guys are adding noise. If you
> > > want to make jokes, please at least start a separate thread.
> ...
> That goes for
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:34:41PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> He's doing more than interpret the results. He claims they are ambigous,
> and that his "interpretation" is based on his speculation on what he thinks
> the developers want.
No, instead of whining and acusing people you should try t
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
> > This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed;
>
> Again, if the vote was flawed (I don't think it was, but if the Secretary
> considers it flawed), the right thing would be to cancel it.
The constitution doesn't explicitely allow a vote to be ca
me to want to voice my opinion.
Personally, I'm happy with Bdale's interpretation of the vote,
and I think that you need to make peace with the fact that vast
majority of developers is more pragmatic than you, when it comes to
DFSG compliance and interpretation. As such, I would be
Robert Millan (12/01/2009):
> And I lost count on how many times I repeated that, but will do as
> long as necessary.
We don't need that kind of behaviour *again*.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Robert Millan writes:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:45:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change
>> the fact that the release team is currently empowered to interpret the
>> DFSG and SC in their own work. That's what the constitutio
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:45:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > As I said in a separate mail, the developers just discredited this line of
> > reasoning by ranking option 2 above option 4.
>
> I disagree completely.
>
> The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change
On Monday 12 January 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
> Nope. You only got that impression because the ones supporting this
> interpretation are the ones making the most noise.
Could you please count the number of your posts and compare that to the
number of posts from anybody else?
Could you also pl
Neil McGovern writes:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:29:41AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> > Sadly, embarrassingly, nobody else has yet matched Manoj's level
> > of careful analysis. Robert Milan has at times come close but the
> > non-existent cabal apparently hates him as much as they hated
> > Manoj
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:12:57AM -0500, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> As for trying to bully people about consitution and the social contract
> et al, I think you need to remember that the Debian Project is a
> concept not an incorporated (or otherwise formally recognized by any
> government as an or
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
> > happened "by accident", but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
> > so I m
Robert Millan writes:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I don't feel the urge to constantly repeat it, but since I'm sending
>> the mail anyway: the release team made a delegate decision. That
>> decision was not overridden. Hence, the release continues. All el
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:30:02PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
> > > > If things go much further we'll end up
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 06:42:12PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Ean Schuessler writes:
> > Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying
> > an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results.
>
> Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere
> d
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:00:02AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> [...] Robert's constitutional interpretation is not
> going to be adopted at present.
There's nothing to be "adopted". The project as a whole thinks of the Social
Contract as a binding document. Having a vocal minority disagree with
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
> > > If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
> > > vote to "hand Robert Millan a nice c
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
> > Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
> > would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response
> > to the questions he's raised in this thread.
>
> I made a subst
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
> > If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
> > vote to "hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU". I'm hoping that's not
> > what anybody actually wants, but
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 04:41:51PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Robert, I appreciate that you believe you're doing the right thing
> here, but attempting to continue this discussion right now, just after
> the first vote that has already delayed Lenny, is not going to help
> y
ryone agrees not
> > > > to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on
> > > > and sanctioned. Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
> > >
> > > You think everyone must be voted on?
> >
> > Everything significant,
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:44 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> That's why I think the main outcome of this ballot was an assertion of
> desire by the voters that we release Lenny.
Actually, I ranked #1 first, and yet, I have a desire that we release
Lenny. However, I don't want a bad r
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 11:35 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> > Do you have any other idea in mind?
> > Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to
> > say,
> > this would be a good time.
>
> How about you going elsewhere until
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:32 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it,
> > your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this?
> > Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
> > think
On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
> > Robert Millan wrote:
> > > - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not
> > > to delay Lenny at all costs, this should de
Robert Millan dijo [Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100]:
> (...)
> You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
> the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. The
> way results stand, they say we make an exception for firmware. They don't
>
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
> > Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
> > Not doing so cr
Robert Millan wrote:
> - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
> Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
> Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
You think everyone must be voted on? What exactly do y
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:17:52AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> - "Robert Millan" wrote:
> > The majority of developers voted to make an exception for firmware in
> > Lenny. They did NOT vote to empower the Release Team to make exceptions
> > as they see
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:29:41AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Sun January 11 2009 08:17:52 Ean Schuessler wrote:
> > Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an
> > editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say "ironically"
> > because Bdale's actions go f
Robert,
I'm not a DD but I have been watching the lists and I think you are
flogging a dead horse, one that has been buried in fact. Choose your
battles and you'll have more good will when you make constructive
proposal and actions post-lenny.
As for trying to bully people about consi
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
> > happened "by accident", but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
> > so I m
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
> happened "by accident", but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
> so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily.
This is not true.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
> the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.
Bdale,
After sleeping over this, I really think I've been unnecesarily harsh, and
at
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:18:43PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:06:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation.
> > > If
> > > the ball
Ean Schuessler writes:
> - "Russ Allbery" wrote:
>> If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override
>> the delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have
>> happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise.
> Some people cannot just leave well
On Sun January 11 2009 08:17:52 Ean Schuessler wrote:
> Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an
> editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say "ironically"
> because Bdale's actions go far beyond anything Manoj did with regard to
> imposing his desires
ld have stated that part of my reasoning more
explicitly.
To my reading, option 1 was the only option that explicitly would have
delayed Lenny release. All of options 2-6 favored release of Lenny,
varying in how broad an exception should be granted and how that choice
might be rationalized.
Op
- "Russ Allbery" wrote:
> If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the
> delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have
> happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise.
Some people cannot just leave well enough alone. Please do not a
* Stephen Gran [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:17:33 +]:
> This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
> > If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
> > vote to "hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU". I'm hoping that's not
> > what anybody actually wants, but I can also
Ben Finney writes:
> Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
> would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response
> to the questions he's raised in this thread.
I made a substantive response to these points weeks ago. He just didn't
like it.
I don't
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
> If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
> vote to "hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU". I'm hoping that's not
> what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people
> might be feeling that way.
D
the consitution and its majority requirements
and generally follow procedure. Now that Bdale is the acting Secretary there
should be no further resistance to releasing Lenny. I think you will find that
Bdale's intrepretation is going to stick. Just a hunch on my part but I'm a
gambling man
en engaging
>> substantively with the questions Robert has raised. However, as that
>> discussion continues, the questions don't seem much closer to
>> resolution.
>
>If you can't understand the "Please postpone the bikeshedding after the
>lenny release so that
Ean Schuessler writes:
> Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying
> an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results.
Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere
does it say that the (acting) Secretary is the authority to
interprete GR re
- "Robert Millan" wrote:
> The majority of developers voted to make an exception for firmware in
> Lenny. They did NOT vote to empower the Release Team to make exceptions
> as they see fit. Results of GR 2008/003 are crystal clear about this.
Unfortunately, nothing c
> > Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU.
>
> Seconded.
+1, seconded too.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes,
, the questions don't seem much closer to
> resolution.
If you can't understand the "Please postpone the bikeshedding after the
lenny release so that you'll have proper answers"-bit then I can nothing
for you.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
