On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:39:21PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > This was stalled because of an unfortunate interaction with the > Project Secretary. I think we should press ahead with our resolution. > > I have adapted Colin's resolution text. I have: > - specified that the transition plan should state timescales > - replaced the text saying we were overruling the libjpeg8 maintainer > with text explaining that the dropping of the provides is a direct > consequence of our decision > - explicitly stated that we expect the libjpeg8 maintainer to make > the relevant upload in accordance with the plan and said that > if it doesn't happen the libjpeg-turbo maintainer should NMU. > - consequently option A is now only 1:1
Apologies for dropping the ball on this, and thanks for picking it up. Your changes make sense to me and I'm happy to vote on them. -- Colin Watson [[email protected]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
