On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
recognizing that the AMD64-based architectures are likely to become the
most widespread on personal computers and workstations in a near future,
hereby resolves:
Seconded. It's high time to push AMD64 on production.
On 2004-07-13 13:43:59 +0100 Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rationale:
I'm sure, in principle, we'd like an amd64 release soon, but this
looks incompletely explained. In particular, your rationale doesn't
give details of your discussions with the release manager, release
assistants,
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:43:59 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
[...]
hereby resolves:
1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed sarge, will
include the amd64 architecture, based on the work currently hosted at
http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/ ;
Could we please not
On 2004-07-13 14:15:30 +0100 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In particular, your rationale doesn't give details of
your discussions with the release manager, release assistants,
ftpmasters and
technical committee directly.
In particular, what decision is this proposal trying to overrule? Or
is
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Furthermore, the AMD64 architecture is mostly ready. It now builds just
as many packages as our other release architectures, and it has a
working installer.
Judging from conversation on debian-glibc, it sounds like AMD64
On 2004-07-13 15:03:47 +0100 Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps you could suggest a preferable course of action for him to
follow instead.
Perhaps you could summarise what delegate's decision this GR is trying
to overturn, for those of us only seeing this on -vote?
--
MJR/slefMy
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed sarge, will
include the amd64 architecture, based on the work currently hosted
at http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/ ;
I think this is the wrong way to approach
I second joss' proposal about AMD-64 in Sarge. We have, in the past,
released with new architectures. And it becomes more and more
important with every release. AMD-64 is about to revolutionise the
Intel world, and Debian would lose big if it didn't get a seat.
--
Please do not CC me when
Hi,
Am Di, den 13.07.2004 schrieb Josselin Mouette um 14:43:
Another reason seems to
be the lack of cooperation of some developers. This resolution intends
to make everyone cooperate in this direction. Of course, the author of
this resolution would welcome if the people responsible would just
Josselin Mouette wrote:
1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed sarge, will=20
include the amd64 architecture, based on the work currently hosted=20
at http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/ ;
Which point of section 4.1 of the constitution do you believe this falls
under?
2.
When you accused me of interpreting official documents pedanticaly, I
wondered what you meant exactly with being pedantic.
Thanks for the illustrative example!
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:05:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:15:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-13 13:43:59 +0100 Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rationale:
I'm sure, in principle, we'd like an amd64 release soon, but this
looks incompletely explained. In particular, your rationale doesn't
give details of
On 2004-07-13 16:18:34 +0100 Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The people actualy putting amd64 on hold are ftpmasters. And I don't
think
he can include any discussions with ftpmasters since all the mail
sent to
them on this issue made its way into /dev/null.
OK, so the GR is seeking to
On mar, 2004-07-13 at 17:20 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
recognizing that the AMD64-based architectures are likely to become the
most widespread on personal computers and workstations in a near future,
This is just a speculation. Probably you make
Robert Millan wrote:
When you accused me of interpreting official documents pedanticaly, I
wondered what you meant exactly with being pedantic.
Please don't top-post, it makes the baby Jesus cry.
More seriously - the constitution clearly defines what can and can't be
done with GRs. The social
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:29:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
When you accused me of interpreting official documents pedanticaly, I
wondered what you meant exactly with being pedantic.
Please don't top-post, it makes the baby Jesus cry.
More seriously - the
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 11:13 -0500, Chris Cheney 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=20
include the amd64 architecture, based on the work currently hosted=20
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:36:22AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:03:47AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Perhaps you could suggest a preferable course of action for him to
follow instead.
I think there are several problems that need to be solved.
The big one is that
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 the amd64 architecture, based on the work currently hosted=
at
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 05:43:18PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 11:13 -0500, Chris Cheney 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,
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:33, Matthew Garrett wrote:
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader of a Delegate.
What decision has been made? Has there actually been a rejection of the
inclusion?
Refusal to act is a decision and a rejection.
If so, on what grounds was it made? If the
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 13:43, 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 computers and
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:42:03AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed sarge, will
include the amd64 architecture, based on the work currently hosted
at
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:31 +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:33, Matthew Garrett wrote:
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader of a Delegate.
What decision has been made? Has there actually been a rejection of the
inclusion?
Refusal to act is a decision
Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:33, Matthew Garrett wrote:
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader of a Delegate.
What decision has been made? Has there actually been a rejection of the
inclusion?
Refusal to act is a decision and a rejection.
A
On 2004-07-13 17:10:38 +0100 Josselin Mouette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] However, I want to make sure amd64 won't be
dropped because of some random developer at a critical position not
agreeing with that.
I don't think you can really overrule a future decision, however much
you want to. It
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:29:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
(Context for those not on #debian-devel - I suggested that a more
appropriate mechanism for dealing with this problem would have been for
private discussion to have taken place in a non-confrontational manner.
Robert suggested
On 2004-07-13 18:27:58 +0100 Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Several of the points in the GR fall back to the ftpmaster never
communicates and thus there are no emails to quote. [...]
You should still be able to reference some email to ftpmaster cc'd to
a lists.debian.org list or similar,
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:50:05PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
In fact, the constitution specifically allows for people to simply not
act and there is no way, other than an amendment to the Social Contract,
to force a group into activity.
If the person in charge doesn't act, someone
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:31:49PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
If so, on what grounds was it made? If the ftp-masters
believe that the mirroring issue needs to be dealt with first, I think
that attempting to override them would be foolish - we don't want to
lose good-will with our
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 08:13:09PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
I remember when I suggested that we should follow clause 1 of the Social
Contract, this was pedantic for you too. Do you find adherance with official
documents always pedantic or only when you disagree with them?
Uhm.. well.
#include hallo.h
* Ingo Juergensmann [Tue, Jul 13 2004, 08:12:22PM]:
This issue has been raised many, many times before, because part of
ftp-masters are as well part of DSA as part of wanna-build crew as part of
name your favorite thing here.
People in role positions should IMHO be forced
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm sure, in principle, we'd like an amd64 release soon, but this
looks incompletely explained. In particular, your rationale doesn't
give details of your discussions with the release manager, release
assistants, ftpmasters and technical committee directly.
Josselin Mouette wrote:
I'm looking for seconds for this proposal, and I hope this can be
discussed quickly so that it doesn't delay the release for too long.
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
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:50:05PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:31 +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:33, Matthew Garrett wrote:
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader of a Delegate.
What decision has been made? Has there
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
3. that we will include it immediately in the sid distribution and
auto-building infrastructure, and take all appropriate steps so
that inclusion won't delay the release of sarge any further.
The best part about this
Hi,
If anyone thinks this GR will actually achieve anything positive,
they're mistaken.
If anyone thinks that trying to decide technical issues through voting
is a good idea, I pity them.
If anyone thinks that they can insult people as much as they like[0]
and that the people they insult still
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 21:41, James Troup wrote:
If you want to help with getting amd64 into the archive...
What, in your opinion, is needed for it to go into the archive?
If we know that, we can indeed help. If this is public information,
please provide a URL.
--
Oliver Elphick
* Matthew Garrett:
Refusal to act is a decision and a rejection.
A stated refusal to act would be. An absence of communication is not.
In the long run, it is. If you watched German politics during much of
the 80s and 90s, you would know how far you can get by just ignoring
things, instead of
* James Troup:
If anyone thinks that trying to decide technical issues through voting
is a good idea, I pity them.
In my eyes, voting on technical issues is still better than no
explicit decision at all. Both options are horrible, but explicit
decisions are still better than implicit ones, no
* James Troup ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If anyone thinks this GR will actually achieve anything positive,
they're mistaken.
I'm on the fence about the GR, personally. Not my idea, didn't even
respond when people called for comments on it. Certainly other methods
would be preferred by
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:07:04PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
In my eyes, voting on technical issues is still better than no
explicit decision at all. Both options are horrible, but explicit
decisions are still better than implicit ones, no matter how they are
made.
It's probably worth
Hi martin!
You wrote:
I second joss' proposal about AMD-64 in Sarge. We have, in the past,
released with new architectures. And it becomes more and more
important with every release. AMD-64 is about to revolutionise the
Intel world, and Debian would lose big if it didn't get a seat.
Well
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:46:06PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:40:29PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Ingo Juergensmann [Tue, Jul 13 2004, 08:12:22PM]:
This issue has been raised many, many times before, because part of
ftp-masters are as
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:
The Debian project hereby resolves,
That we will not include further
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 22:07, Florian Weimer wrote:
* James Troup:
If anyone thinks that trying to decide technical issues through voting
is a good idea, I pity them.
Surely it is not so much a technical issue as a policy issue? Since
different opinions are being expressed, then in a
Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:43:59 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
[...]
hereby resolves:
1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed sarge, will
include the amd64 architecture, based on the work currently hosted at
Eduard Bloch wrote:
Seconded.
Since in the last thread initiated by me I asked for a similar action
(read: an answer) and nothing happened, I think this is a clear answer
from FTP masters, saying: WE ARE TO LAZY TO WORK AND TO LEET TO
COMMUNICATE WITH SECOND-CLASS DDs. WE WANNA BE REMOVED
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Furthermore, the AMD64 architecture is mostly ready. It now builds just
as many packages as our other release architectures, and it has a
working installer.
Judging from conversation
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 use a GR to make a
technical decision, and it seems to be the position you're really
seconding anyway. If
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 21:32 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:50:05PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:31 +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:33, Matthew Garrett wrote:
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
If anyone thinks this GR will actually achieve anything positive,
they're mistaken.
If anyone thinks that trying to decide technical issues through voting
is a good idea, I pity them.
So what technical issues are there? And please reply with your
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:
The
On 2004-07-13 22:48:28 +0100 Frank Pennycook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Surely it is not so much a technical issue as a policy issue?
Then someone should explain why it is non-technical. Technical policy
is not normally decided by GR.
Since
different opinions are being expressed, then in a
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:38:47AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
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
^
Erm, shit. =)
Anyway, I'm likely to second the proposal
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 00:25 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
I hereby propose an amendment to the current GR proposal Release sarge
with amd64:
The Debian project hereby resolves,
That we will not include further architectures for the next Debian release
(codenamed 'sarge'),
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:36:35AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
I really don't see this problem. I have absolutely no problem
communicating with James, in fact I'm doing so right now. Nothing to do
with this issue, just two developers communicating with each other.
I strongly suspect
Scott James Remnant wrote:
I strongly suspect there are many others in Debian who also have no
problems communicating with James.
I've had many pleasant and productive communications with James as
well. Further, I appreciate the work he and the ftpmasters do to keep
Debian working well and not
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 19:12 -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:36:35AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
I really don't see this problem. I have absolutely no problem
communicating with James, in fact I'm doing so right now. Nothing to do
with this issue, just two
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 07:12:19PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
Of the people that I have heard comment about James he seems to be
quite easy to talk to if you have met him in person but otherwise is
nearly impossible to even get him to respond at all. I am pretty sure
you fall into the first
Frank Pennycook wrote:
Surely it is not so much a technical issue as a policy issue? Since
different opinions are being expressed, then in a democracy it would
seem valid to decide it by voting.
We don't vote to decide Debian policy, where different opinions are
expressed regularly, we don't
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:26:00AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
James is pretty easy to meet, he's been to the last two Debconfs at
least. You have to be trying fairly hard to miss him too.
I would love to go to Debconf's however they are always very far away (US)
and thus expensive to
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 use a GR to make a
technical decision, and it seems to be the position
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:30:46 -0400, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After all, when you start dictating to
volenteers what jobs to do and how, you risk losing those volenteers.
Yes.
I wonder, did the proposer and the seconders read Constitution 2.1:1.
(Nothing in this constitution imposes
On mar, 2004-07-13 at 18:35 +0100, 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.
Indeed. They've already learned to communicate on how a GR is
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 developers?
If anyone thinks that they can insult people as much as they
On mar, 2004-07-13 at 12:37 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I agree. If this GR were calling for amd64 to be introduced to sid, I'd
support it, but I don't think it's right to release it with sarge.
Well, that's what amendments are for.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :
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
work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which
has been delegated or
It's probably worth noting that the dpkg I downloaded as of 5 minutes ago
still doesn't support the amd64 architecture. This is a trivial patch,
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:50:29AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
I haven't uploaded one that does yet.
Thanks, that's somewhat informative.
69 matches
Mail list logo
