Simon McVittie writes:
> I'm calling for votes on the following resolution as formal advice from
> the Technical Committee (Constitution §6.1.5). There are no non-accepted
> amendments, so the options to vote on are "yes" or "further discussion".
>
> begin text to be voted on
>
>
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 08:13:08PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I'm calling for votes on the following resolution as formal advice from
> the Technical Committee (Constitution §6.1.5). There are no non-accepted
> amendments, so the options to vote on are "yes" or "further discussion".
I vote
Re: Simon McVittie
> I'm calling for votes on the following resolution as formal advice from
> the Technical Committee (Constitution §6.1.5). There are no non-accepted
> amendments, so the options to vote on are "yes" or "further discussion".
I vote yes > further discussion.
> begin text to
> I'm calling for votes on the following resolution as formal advice from
> the Technical Committee (Constitution §6.1.5). There are no non-accepted
> amendments, so the options to vote on are "yes" or "further discussion".
My vote on the text quoted below:
yes > further discussion
>
>
Hello,
On Wed 13 Oct 2021 at 08:13PM +01, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I'm calling for votes on the following resolution as formal advice from
> the Technical Committee (Constitution §6.1.5). There are no non-accepted
> amendments, so the options to vote on are "yes" or "further discussion".
I vote
Simon McVittie dijo [Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 08:13:08PM +0100]:
> I'm calling for votes on the following resolution as formal advice from
> the Technical Committee (Constitution §6.1.5). There are no non-accepted
> amendments, so the options to vote on are "yes" or "further discussion".
My vote on
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 08:13:08PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I'm calling for votes on the following resolution as formal advice from
> the Technical Committee (Constitution §6.1.5). There are no non-accepted
> amendments, so the options to vote on are "yes" or "further discussion".
I vote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 20:13:08 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I'm calling for votes on the following resolution as formal advice from
> the Technical Committee (Constitution §6.1.5). There are no non-accepted
> amendments, so the options to vote on are "yes" or "further discussion".
I vote yes >
I'm calling for votes on the following resolution as formal advice from
the Technical Committee (Constitution §6.1.5). There are no non-accepted
amendments, so the options to vote on are "yes" or "further discussion".
begin text to be voted on
Summary
===
There are currently
Hello Simon,
On Tue 05 Oct 2021 at 07:48PM +01, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2021 at 16:52:15 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> On Mon 27 Sep 2021 at 10:59AM +01, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> > On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 at 15:35:11 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> >> (1) The reason for this, to put it
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 12:35:38PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/tech-ctte/-/blob/master/994388_merged_usr_advice/draft.md
Many thanks for your work, and sorry for not participating earlier.
I agree with you that it would be good to send advice out sooner
rather
On Sun, 03 Oct 2021 at 16:52:15 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Mon 27 Sep 2021 at 10:59AM +01, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 at 15:35:11 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >> (1) The reason for this, to put it a bit simplistically, is that we
> >> don't require apt to perform the
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 at 09:18:29 -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> [smcv wrote]
> >On merged-/usr systems, there is a possible failure mode involving files
> >being moved between packages (with Replaces) during the same release
> >cycle that their logical location is changed from the root filesystem
>
Hello,
On Mon 27 Sep 2021 at 10:59AM +01, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 at 15:35:11 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> You write:
>>
>> >> - Because Debian 11 installations with the non-merged-/usr layout already
>> >> exist, all packages in Debian 12 should be installable onto a
>>
>On merged-/usr systems, there is a possible failure mode involving files
>being moved between packages (with Replaces) during the same release
>cycle that their logical location is changed from the root filesystem
>to the corresponding aliased directory in /usr, which can result in
>the
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 at 12:35:38 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/tech-ctte/-/blob/master/994388_merged_usr_advice/draft.md
I have updated this draft to incorporate my edits from !3, and feedback
from bremner on IRC.
I'd like to keep this moving, because it's
Hello,
On Wed 15 Sep 2021 at 12:35PM +01, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 at 11:46:11 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> As for what that advice is, I'm open to suggestions, but I'm drafting
>> some possible wording, which I'll upload to
>> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/tech-ctte/
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 at 11:34:33 -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> For the various files with a "canonical" location
> either in /usr or in /, either specified by some standard or by
> convention, and regularly referred to by absolute pathname, all
> software should continue to refer to those files by
> "Simon" == Simon McVittie writes:
Simon> Package: tech-ctte Severity: normal
Simon> As discussed in our last meeting, I think we should issue
Simon> more specific advice about merged-/usr, and in particular
Simon> about what #978636 means for maintainers right now.
I
As a Debian user I'm pleased to see the ctte taking proactive steps to
ensure that the merged-/usr transition will still allow smooth
upgrades from Debian 11 to 12 and 12 to 13.
As an upstream contributor to several pieces of software included in
Debian, and as someone with an interest in
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 at 12:35:38 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> - §(Building packages): I almost wrote an extra paragraph about how
> this class of bugs becomes a non-issue when merged-/usr is the only
> supported layout - but actually it doesn't! If we consider building
> packages while
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 at 11:46:11 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> As for what that advice is, I'm open to suggestions, but I'm drafting
> some possible wording, which I'll upload to
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/tech-ctte/ when I have a bug number
> for it.
Here it is:
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: normal
As discussed in our last meeting, I think we should issue more specific
advice about merged-/usr, and in particular about what #978636 means for
maintainers right now.
Constitutionally, I'm asking the TC to use its power to offer formal
advice (Debian
23 matches
Mail list logo
