[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The only valid reasons for not including it are lack of LSB compliance
> > (which can still be easily achieved with a i386 chroot) and mirror space
> > (which will be saved using partial mirroring)
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:52:20 +0200, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:54:53AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:45:56AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>> > Anyway, I'm likely to second the proposal that comes out of this
>> > draft.
>
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:46:16 +0200, Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:15:16PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:19PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>> > Even a fresh DD, who has been a NM last year, stated that he
>> > won't commen
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 12:54:26AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 12:48:07AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:19PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > Even a fresh DD, who has been a NM last year, stated that he won't comment
> > > publically
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The only valid reasons for not including it are lack of LSB compliance
> (which can still be easily achieved with a i386 chroot) and mirror space
> (which will be saved using partial mirroring).
Is this a claim that all of the am
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I won't even consider this proposal until you or someone else explains
> to me why we should use the voting system to decide an issue like this.
Because it will make sure it gets delayed endlessly. :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only valid reasons for not including it are lack of LSB compliance
> (which can still be easily achieved with a i386 chroot) and mirror space
> (which will be saved using partial mirroring).
Why not just fix these instead of using hacks?
--
T
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 12:02:55AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-14 19:42:22 +0100 Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:00:42PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>On 2004-07-14 18:03:28 +0100 Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>[...] using our conversation tha
On 2004-07-14 23:15:16 +0100 Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James stated outright in the NM BOF at DebConf that he didn't delay
people for asking about their progress. [...]
Does he (or anyone) answer the queries?
Was the NM BOF documented, or is this info only known to those who
were in
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:15:16PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:19PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > Even a fresh DD, who has been a NM last year, stated that he won't
> > comment publically against Mr. Troup, because he feared that his
> > Approval would be delaye
On 2004-07-14 19:42:22 +0100 Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:00:42PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-14 18:03:28 +0100 Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] using our conversation that I mentioned as proof that
ftpmaster
can sometimes be reasonable.
Who
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:20:56PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 13:50 -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> > Correct. The appropriate GR is "Foo shall be removed for failure to perform
> > the duties of $position", with the rationale citing "failure to perform
> > action A, a
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:50:13PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On a sidenote, I might well vote for a GR that directs the ftpmasters to
> > add the amd64 architecture to sid with all achieveable speed as a technical
> > decision overridding the (apparently de-facto) decision of the ftpmasters,
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:54:53AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:45:56AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Anyway, I'm likely to second the proposal that comes out of this draft.
>
> Just for the reference, I'm inclined to change it into something like "Debian
> rea
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 12:46:16AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:15:16PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Obviously, flaming people whose cooperation you need doesn't
> > necessarily speak volumes for your ability to cooperate in the
> > project, but that's a separate i
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 12:48:07AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:19PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > Even a fresh DD, who has been a NM last year, stated that he won't comment
> > publically against Mr. Troup, because he feared that his Approval would be
> > delay
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:19PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> Even a fresh DD, who has been a NM last year, stated that he won't comment
> publically against Mr. Troup, because he feared that his Approval would be
> delayed then. Funny enough he obviously changed his mind after he became a
>
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 13:50 -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> Correct. The appropriate GR is "Foo shall be removed for failure to perform
> the duties of $position", with the rationale citing "failure to perform
> action A, a duty of $position".
>
I believe anyone proposing, and possibly seconding such
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:19:19PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> Even a fresh DD, who has been a NM last year, stated that he won't
> comment publically against Mr. Troup, because he feared that his
> Approval would be delayed then. Funny enough he obviously changed his
> mind after he became a
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 05:33:28PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:05:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >> >1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed "sarge", will=3D20
> >> > include
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:50:13PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> On a sidenote, I might well vote for a GR that directs the ftpmasters to
> add the amd64 architecture to sid with all achieveable speed as a technical
> decision overridding the (apparently de-facto) decision of the ftpmasters,
Isn't th
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:50:13PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Correct, a resolution that says "Foo must perform action A, instead of
> > not performing action A" is explicitly a no-op under the constitution,
> > and is also obviously silly.
> Correct. The appropriate GR is "Foo shall be removed
* Chris Cheney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040714 21:55]:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 08:16:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > could you please try to not interpret things in Daniel's mail he didn't
> > say? He didn't tell anything about his intentions to communicate about
> > amd64, but just that he does
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:43:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 02:44:02AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:41:04PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > If anyone thinks this GR will actually achieve anything positive,
> > > they're mi
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 08:16:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> could you please try to not interpret things in Daniel's mail he didn't
> say? He didn't tell anything about his intentions to communicate about
> amd64, but just that he doesn't like it if private off-hand remarks
> are cited in publ
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:25:26AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> The following is a draft for an amendment to the latest GR; I'd appreciate
> comments on it before eventually proposing it:
>
> ===
>
> I hereby propose an amendment to the current GR proposal "Release sarge
> with amd64":
>
Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm glad you have made it abundantly clear that ftpmaster had no
>intention to communicate about the amd64 issue at all. Some people had
>been using our conversation that I mentioned as proof that ftpmaster can
>sometimes be reasonable.
That's a desperatel
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:00:42PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-14 18:03:28 +0100 Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Some people had
> >been using our conversation that I mentioned as proof that ftpmaster
> >can
> >sometimes be reasonable.
>
> Who had?
>
> Why are so few of this GR'
Hi,
* Chris Cheney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040714 19:25]:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:22:02PM +0100, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Chris Cheney wrote:
> > | More private discussion with whom ourselves? ftpmaster refuses to
> > | comment on a
On 2004-07-14 18:03:28 +0100 Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm glad you have made it abundantly clear that ftpmaster had no
intention to communicate about the amd64 issue at all.
Alternatively, ftpmaster are not announcing vapour. Maybe you'd like
to know what they are up to, but I'm not
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:22:02PM +0100, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Chris Cheney wrote:
> | More private discussion with whom ourselves? ftpmaster refuses to
> | comment on any email sent them, the only way I managed to get Daniel to
> | respon
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:33:19PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi Sven,
>
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040714 15:25]:
> > Yeah, but IRC is not email, and i not everyone does irc, which is a
> > massive time loser, and quite discouraging anyway if you count the
> > receival you get there
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 06:22:12 +0200, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On mer, 2004-07-14 at 04:39 +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > I wonder, did the proposer and the seconders read Constitution 2.1:1.
> > ("Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do
> > w
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> IMHO having a GR for this is wrong -- what goes into a release is the
> business of the Release Manager. However, as there is already a proposal on
> this, there should also be a counter-proposal for those who disagree.
I understand what you're trying to do, but I thi
Sven Luther wrote:
> I personally trust the ftp-masters, and believe they are working for the
> best of the project, but it is hard when one has questions only they can
> answer or act to solve, to wait apparently forever in the dark. And in
> some cases, it is even harmfull for the project, as it
According to Andreas Barth:
> Well, if I would be cited with a private off-hand remark, I definitly
> would stop to make private off-hand remarks to the person in question.
Jeepers. Let's stay on topic, OK?
--
Chip Salzenberg- a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 2004-07-14 13:45:35 +0100 Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, if I would be cited with a private off-hand remark, I definitly
would stop to make private off-hand remarks to the person in question.
Yes, understandable. I think this might be an example of what inspired
James Troup to s
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 13:41, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Oliver Elphick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040714 14:25]:
> > It is very discourteous to ignore people. Don't your fellow developers
> > deserve some human consideration and courtesy?
>
> Did you ever try to speak to Daniel directly? I tried it once
Hi Sven,
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040714 15:25]:
> Yeah, but IRC is not email, and i not everyone does irc, which is a
> massive time loser, and quite discouraging anyway if you count the
> receival you get there from certain project members who are less than
> courteous.
I perfectly we
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 02:41:25PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Oliver Elphick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040714 14:25]:
> > On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 12:15, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
> > > Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > > | However, this GR should not have been necessary. I second it in the
> > > |
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 02:00:06PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:28:28PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:02:03PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 08:23:44AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > > > I strongly suspect ther
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 02:41:25PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Did you ever try to speak to Daniel directly? I tried it once (on
> IRC), and got immediate reply from him. So, please don't accuse Daniel
> until you have massive negative experiences with him personally.
> Daniel, please keep your o
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040714 14:40]:
> On 2004-07-14 12:22:02 +0100 Daniel Silverstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >I'm glad you said 'trapped' because that's exactly what you did.
> >That, and
> >breaking the confidence of a private off-hand remark [...]
> Besides the unethical beh
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:36:35AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> I strongly suspect there are many others in Debian who also have no
> problems communicating with James.
During debconf4, I didn't have any problem communicating with him
personally.
He actively participated in one BOF session
Hi,
* Oliver Elphick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040714 14:25]:
> On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 12:15, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
> > Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > | However, this GR should not have been necessary. I second it in the
> > | hope that dropping a sledgehammer on their toes will get the ftpmasters
> > |
On 2004-07-14 12:22:02 +0100 Daniel Silverstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'm glad you said 'trapped' because that's exactly what you did.
That, and
breaking the confidence of a private off-hand remark [...]
Besides the unethical behaviour of not stating he would report and
attribute, was the
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 12:15, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Oliver Elphick wrote:
> | However, this GR should not have been necessary. I second it in the
> | hope that dropping a sledgehammer on their toes will get the ftpmasters
> | to learn to co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Cheney wrote:
| More private discussion with whom ourselves? ftpmaster refuses to
| comment on any email sent them, the only way I managed to get Daniel to
| respond was that he was already asking me questions on irc about an
| unrelated matter, s
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:28:28PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:02:03PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 08:23:44AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > > I strongly suspect there are many others in Debian who also have no
> > > > problems communica
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 02:44:02AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:41:04PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > If anyone thinks this GR will actually achieve anything positive,
> > they're mistaken.
>
> A GR to make the various delegated developers communicate would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oliver Elphick wrote:
| However, this GR should not have been necessary. I second it in the
| hope that dropping a sledgehammer on their toes will get the ftpmasters
| to learn to communicate.
And maybe; just maybe; what it'll do is break their already
On 13/07/2004 Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Consider the situation from their perspective. They have work to do in
> order for amd64 to enter the archive. From a certain group of developers,
> they face accusations of "stalling"[0], announcements made in apparent
> attempts to shame them into action[1]
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:54:53AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:45:56AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Anyway, I'm likely to second the proposal that comes out of this draft.
>
> Just for the reference, I'm inclined to change it into something like "Debian
> rea
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:30:46PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:03:31 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Maybe a better GR would be one removing the ftpmasters from their
> > > position then. This would at least avoid trying to us
Hallo! Du (James Troup) hast geschrieben:
>I will not be blackmailed into doing things for people who have public
>tantrums to try and force stuff through. In fact, it'll very much
>encourage me to not work on whatever it is they're whining about.
>(And others have warned that this is the case[2]
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:02:03PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 08:23:44AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > I strongly suspect there are many others in Debian who also have no
> > > problems communicating with James.
>
> > And there are many others that actually have
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 08:23:44AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > I strongly suspect there are many others in Debian who also have no
> > problems communicating with James.
> And there are many others that actually have those problems and I don't
> think it's their fault, when James can't dif
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:57:00AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > The Debian project,
> >
> > based on its Social Contract stating that its priorities are its users
> > and free software,
> >
> > recognizing that the AMD64-ba
Hey, this is Tiffany! One of my friends said she knew
you and we should get in contact with each other.
I just got my videocamera working so we can talk as long
as you want at my website and it doesn't cost you anything
if you wanna watch/see me!
Just Copy and Paste the URL below in your Bro
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The Debian project,
>
> based on its Social Contract stating that its priorities are its users
> and free software,
>
> recognizing that the AMD64-based architectures are likely to become the
> most widespread on personal comput
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:58:03PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> There is no opposition to the amd64 port, and therefore no enemy in this
> situation. You are attacking your teammates.
Most teams actually communicate with each other.
Chris
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
First off I would like to apologize for my rude email to d-d/d-q-k that
was mentioned below. I was quite upset at the time which could have
easily been alleviated had certain key people involved with the buildds
decided communication was a useful tool.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:41:04PM +0100, Jam
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 06:13:38AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> On mar, 2004-07-13 at 21:41 +0100, James Troup wrote:
> > If anyone thinks this GR will actually achieve anything positive,
> > they're mistaken.
>
> Are you trying to say you would work against the decision of the
> majority of
63 matches
Mail list logo
