On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:32:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > I don't think we have really had a proper technical discussion about > this - at least, not one that's finished. Until we have one, I don't > think we should make this decision. That discussion would need the > services of someone competent and useful to champion the `pro' > arguments, but at the moment we don't have any such person available.
As this was submitted as a request to overrule a maintainer's decision, I don't see any reason to defer the TC vote pending a more compelling 'pro' case. > So I would prefer my previous resolution instead of this one - but I > didn't get enough support for that. > Regarding this resolution, I'd like my vote as follows to be recorded > although the outcome is no longer in doubt (and the committee seems to > disagree with me). > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > [ 3 ] Choice 1: a libstdc++ udeb should be created as per bug #367709 > > [ 2 ] Choice 2: a libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709 > > [ 1 ] Choice 3: Further discussion > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- FWIW, I think it could have been made clearer that choice 2 refers to not overruling the maintainer's decision, rather than instructing the maintainer not to create the udeb package. > If anyone other than Sven comes up with a good use for a libstdc++ > udeb, despite the problems described by others here, then I would like > people to give it all due consideration. If the situation changes I'm > sure that the d-i team and if necessary the committee are capable of > changing their minds. Contrary to Sven's assertions about the TC as a whole, I did give due consideration to the question in the first place and wouldn't hesitate to reconsider the matter in the light of new information. But as I noted in the rationale appended to my vote, there are some technical issues that have not been addressed in the current proposal to overrule; I think these would need to be sorted before I would be willing to overrule the maintainer's decision here (but then, if they were sorted I have no reason to think the maintainer would have to be overruled). -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
