Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
On Tue, 29, Mar, 2011 at 08:14:21AM -0700, Don Armstrong spoke thus.. What is the current status of this? I've just checked the packages, and given the constraints of #510415, I have accepted netqmail, dot-forward, fastforward, qmail-run and qmail-tools. I will shortly be filing RC bugs against each of these as per #510415 to prevent their migration to testing. Once I have those bug numbers, I will update #510415 appropriately. Mark -- Mark Hymers mhy at debian dot org I'm so gorgeous, there's a six month waiting list for birds to suddenly appear, every time I am near! Cat, Red Dwarf Series VIII - Back in the Red -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
On Fri, 01, Apr, 2011 at 01:17:52PM +0100, Mark Hymers spoke thus.. I've just checked the packages, and given the constraints of #510415, I have accepted netqmail, dot-forward, fastforward, qmail-run and qmail-tools. I will shortly be filing RC bugs against each of these as per #510415 to prevent their migration to testing. Once I have those bug numbers, I will update #510415 appropriately. Bug numbers are: #620378 #620381 #620382 #620383 #620384 Thanks, -- Mark Hymers mhy at debian dot org The first thing we do, let's kill all the Lawyers Henry VI Part II, Shakespeare -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 08:15:09AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Gerrit Pape wrote: Hi, packages are in NEW since more than one year without any comments from ftpmasters. I don't think that's standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal, isn't it? Has the patch to fix the delayed bounces issue been applied? Yes, according to debian/changelog on Mon, 08 Mar 2010. Regards, Gerrit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 02:34:16PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Andreas Barth wrote: 34215 With 4 people ranking 3 first, and Steve ranking it second, I believe the outcome is no longer in doubt, and so the CTTE has resolved that 3. Qmail is to be allowed in to the archive after a patch to resolve the delayed bounces issue, where mail sent to an invalid recipient which a reasonable MTA is capable of knowing is invalid is accepted instead of being rejected at RCPT TO time. After upload, the process outlined in option #2 will take effect. [From option #2] Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal. with the addition of an RC bug filed immediately to preventing normal transition for a period of at least a month after traversing NEW. Hi, packages are in NEW since more than one year without any comments from ftpmasters. I don't think that's standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal, isn't it? Regards, Gerrit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
Congratulations Gerrit. Almost there. Thanks for your persistence. -PeterM On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Gerrit Pape p...@dbnbgs.smarden.orgwrote: On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 02:34:16PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Andreas Barth wrote: 34215 With 4 people ranking 3 first, and Steve ranking it second, I believe the outcome is no longer in doubt, and so the CTTE has resolved that 3. Qmail is to be allowed in to the archive after a patch to resolve the delayed bounces issue, where mail sent to an invalid recipient which a reasonable MTA is capable of knowing is invalid is accepted instead of being rejected at RCPT TO time. After upload, the process outlined in option #2 will take effect. [From option #2] Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal. with the addition of an RC bug filed immediately to preventing normal transition for a period of at least a month after traversing NEW. Hi, packages are in NEW since more than one year without any comments from ftpmasters. I don't think that's standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal, isn't it? Regards, Gerrit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2011032919.12165.qm...@c585e02509d04c.315fe32.mid.smarden.org
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Gerrit Pape wrote: On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 02:34:16PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Andreas Barth wrote: 34215 With 4 people ranking 3 first, and Steve ranking it second, I believe the outcome is no longer in doubt, and so the CTTE has resolved that 3. Qmail is to be allowed in to the archive after a patch to resolve the delayed bounces issue, where mail sent to an invalid recipient which a reasonable MTA is capable of knowing is invalid is accepted instead of being rejected at RCPT TO time. After upload, the process outlined in option #2 will take effect. [From option #2] Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal. with the addition of an RC bug filed immediately to preventing normal transition for a period of at least a month after traversing NEW. Hi, packages are in NEW since more than one year without any comments from ftpmasters. I don't think that's standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal, isn't it? Has the patch to fix the delayed bounces issue been applied? Don Armstrong -- Cheop's Law: Nothing ever gets built on schedule or within budget. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p242 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:00:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]: | 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for | licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal. | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 2. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions, save the RC bug indicated below. Ftpmaster should | perform standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general | packaging issues as normal. with the addition of an RC bug filed | immediately to preventing normal transition for a period of at least a | month after traversing NEW. | | During this period, additional RC (or non-RC) bugs should be filed by | interested parties, and updated qmail packages fixing these bugs | should be uploaded as usual. After a month, the RM or the maintainer | can continue to decide that the package is not acceptable for release | at their discretion, as happens for any package. [If the RM or | maintainer don't reaffirm the transition blocking bug, the ctte will | close the transition blocking bug.] | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 3. Qmail is to be allowed in to the archive after a patch to resolve | the delayed bounces issue, where mail sent to an invalid recipient | which a reasonable MTA is capable of knowing is invalid is accepted | instead of being rejected at RCPT TO time. After upload, the process | outlined in option #2 will take effect. | | 4. Qmail is not to be allowed into Debian. | | 5. Further discussion. We have 6 of the 7 votes now: 32145 rra 32145 don 31245 srivasta 53421 vorlon 34215 aba 12354 bdale Note that the constitution has a 1 week voting period for this. Bdale's mail is about 1 week and 1 day after don's CfV, but couting it or not doesn't seem to make any difference. This seems to fall under constitution 6.1.3, and so has a normal 1:1 majority requirement. There is a quorum of 2, all option reach quorum. All option also reach the 1:1 majority requirement. I think it's clear that option 3 wins. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:46:05AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: [...] I think it's clear that option 3 wins. Your message wasn't signed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 21:00 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]: | 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for | licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal. | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 2. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions, save the RC bug indicated below. Ftpmaster should | perform standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general | packaging issues as normal. with the addition of an RC bug filed | immediately to preventing normal transition for a period of at least a | month after traversing NEW. | | During this period, additional RC (or non-RC) bugs should be filed by | interested parties, and updated qmail packages fixing these bugs | should be uploaded as usual. After a month, the RM or the maintainer | can continue to decide that the package is not acceptable for release | at their discretion, as happens for any package. [If the RM or | maintainer don't reaffirm the transition blocking bug, the ctte will | close the transition blocking bug.] | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 3. Qmail is to be allowed in to the archive after a patch to resolve | the delayed bounces issue, where mail sent to an invalid recipient | which a reasonable MTA is capable of knowing is invalid is accepted | instead of being rejected at RCPT TO time. After upload, the process | outlined in option #2 will take effect. | | 4. Qmail is not to be allowed into Debian. | | 5. Further discussion. 12354 Bdale signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [090821 20:46]: I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]: | 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for | licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal. | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 2. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions, save the RC bug indicated below. Ftpmaster should | perform standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general | packaging issues as normal. with the addition of an RC bug filed | immediately to preventing normal transition for a period of at least a | month after traversing NEW. | | During this period, additional RC (or non-RC) bugs should be filed by | interested parties, and updated qmail packages fixing these bugs | should be uploaded as usual. After a month, the RM or the maintainer | can continue to decide that the package is not acceptable for release | at their discretion, as happens for any package. [If the RM or | maintainer don't reaffirm the transition blocking bug, the ctte will | close the transition blocking bug.] | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 3. Qmail is to be allowed in to the archive after a patch to resolve | the delayed bounces issue, where mail sent to an invalid recipient | which a reasonable MTA is capable of knowing is invalid is accepted | instead of being rejected at RCPT TO time. After upload, the process | outlined in option #2 will take effect. | | 4. Qmail is not to be allowed into Debian. | | 5. Further discussion. 34215 Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:45:18AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: I am concerned that this has gone to a vote without any actual answers to the questions posed in 20090812062208.gf9...@rzlab.ucr.edu. I interpreted Andi's response as one answer, and the lack of any additional messages as an indication that there wasn't any additions to the set of bugs which needed to be fixed before allowing an upload (though the set of bugs to allow it to transition to testing was larger)... which apparently wasn't the case. Well, given the outcome of the DebConf TC BoF, where Ian said he would follow up regarding the other bug he's encountered which didn't make the referenced list of qmail bugs, I expected that we would wait for that information to come in before moving to a vote. I do agree that it's not fair to have a moving set of things to fix for uploading to the archive, but I think that just means we have an obligation to examine the package carefully and enumerate that set of critical bugs, not that we should call it good with the one critical bug that's currently been identified to this list. I'm of the personal opinion that having the package in unstable and enumerating the set of bugs using the BTS is (in general) the best way to do just this, though the delayed bounce issue is serious enough to delay the package. There are certainly serious bugs, but in my opinion, they're not bugs that are severe enough to stop an upload of qmail to unstable (or in my original thinking, to experimental.) I think that in general, any known bug of RC-severity should be sufficient grounds to keep a package from being accepted into the archive; tempered by concern that we not frustrate maintainers by moving the bar (i.e., if the maintainer has already had to reupload once to fix an RC bug, don't reject the package from NEW again because of other RC bugs that were overlooked in the first reject). So yes, if we're taking a decision delegated to us by the ftp team, I expect a certain measure of due diligence in identifying the critical bugs in the package. It would have been nice for these issues to have been raised at some point in the week which elapsed between me trying to advance the issue and calling for votes or at least the two days between me sending a ballot option and calling for votes so they could be properly addressed. I thought a clear consensus had emerged from the BoF regarding the steps to be taken to move this bug forward, so I was unprepared for a change in status that required timely mail processing on my part. At any rate, having done my own review now of the data I'm mostly satisfied with moving this forward. I would still like to see Ian's input before I'm willing to change my own vote to move 'further discussion' down the list, though. [As a process issue, is there some better way[1] to let people know that someone is starting to get close to calling for votes? Should we Cc: CTTE members directly or ping on IRC?] In my case, a subject line change marking out the fact that there's a draft up for consideration would go a long way to help me. Perhaps the RFR (request for review) ad LCFC (last call for comments) conventions in use by several of the Debian l10n teams would be suitable? But in general, any subject line change drawing attention to the fact that there's a draft would do the trick, so that it doesn't get lost amid an arbitrarily-sized set of other unprocessed mails on the thread. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:00:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]: | 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for | licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal. | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 2. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions, save the RC bug indicated below. Ftpmaster should | perform standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general | packaging issues as normal. with the addition of an RC bug filed | immediately to preventing normal transition for a period of at least a | month after traversing NEW. | | During this period, additional RC (or non-RC) bugs should be filed by | interested parties, and updated qmail packages fixing these bugs | should be uploaded as usual. After a month, the RM or the maintainer | can continue to decide that the package is not acceptable for release | at their discretion, as happens for any package. [If the RM or | maintainer don't reaffirm the transition blocking bug, the ctte will | close the transition blocking bug.] | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 3. Qmail is to be allowed in to the archive after a patch to resolve | the delayed bounces issue, where mail sent to an invalid recipient | which a reasonable MTA is capable of knowing is invalid is accepted | instead of being rejected at RCPT TO time. After upload, the process | outlined in option #2 will take effect. | | 4. Qmail is not to be allowed into Debian. | | 5. Further discussion. I vote: 5 3 4 2 1 I am concerned that this has gone to a vote without any actual answers to the questions posed in 20090812062208.gf9...@rzlab.ucr.edu. My understanding following the TC BoF at DebConf9 was that we would be reviewing some list of known qmail problems that someone had mentioned there, and that we would additionally consider some bug Ian had direct experience with that was believed to not be on that list. This doesn't appear to have happened; instead we're voting on a set of options that lets us treat one particular RC bug as a blocker for archive inclusion, without really looking around and doing the sort of due diligence that I would expect the ftp team themselves to have done before accepting such a historically problematic package. I realize that this bug has been sitting unresolved for an inappropriately long time, but it seems to me that with this vote we're trying to rush it through to a conclusion, and in the process making a poorer decision than the team who delegated this to us would have made. Certainly, I see a number of issues on http://home.pages.de/~mandree/qmail-bugs.html that I would not like to see in any package in the archive, not just the delayed-reject bug, and I would like to know from Gerrit which of the described bugs are addressed in the qmail package before giving it a green light for archive inclusion. I do agree that it's not fair to have a moving set of things to fix for uploading to the archive, but I think that just means we have an obligation to examine the package carefully and enumerate that set of critical bugs, not that we should call it good with the one critical bug that's currently been identified to this list. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: I am concerned that this has gone to a vote without any actual answers to the questions posed in 20090812062208.gf9...@rzlab.ucr.edu. I interpreted Andi's response as one answer, and the lack of any additional messages as an indication that there wasn't any additions to the set of bugs which needed to be fixed before allowing an upload (though the set of bugs to allow it to transition to testing was larger)... which apparently wasn't the case. I do agree that it's not fair to have a moving set of things to fix for uploading to the archive, but I think that just means we have an obligation to examine the package carefully and enumerate that set of critical bugs, not that we should call it good with the one critical bug that's currently been identified to this list. I'm of the personal opinion that having the package in unstable and enumerating the set of bugs using the BTS is (in general) the best way to do just this, though the delayed bounce issue is serious enough to delay the package. There are certainly serious bugs, but in my opinion, they're not bugs that are severe enough to stop an upload of qmail to unstable (or in my original thinking, to experimental.) It would have been nice for these issues to have been raised at some point in the week which elapsed between me trying to advance the issue and calling for votes or at least the two days between me sending a ballot option and calling for votes so they could be properly addressed. [As a process issue, is there some better way[1] to let people know that someone is starting to get close to calling for votes? Should we Cc: CTTE members directly or ping on IRC?] Don Armstrong 1: I had just assumed that sending a mail to the bug was enough, but it's certainly an option to do something more, so long as everyone knows what that is. -- Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p251 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]: | 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for | licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal. | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 2. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions, save the RC bug indicated below. Ftpmaster should | perform standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general | packaging issues as normal. with the addition of an RC bug filed | immediately to preventing normal transition for a period of at least a | month after traversing NEW. | | During this period, additional RC (or non-RC) bugs should be filed by | interested parties, and updated qmail packages fixing these bugs | should be uploaded as usual. After a month, the RM or the maintainer | can continue to decide that the package is not acceptable for release | at their discretion, as happens for any package. [If the RM or | maintainer don't reaffirm the transition blocking bug, the ctte will | close the transition blocking bug.] | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 3. Qmail is to be allowed in to the archive after a patch to resolve | the delayed bounces issue, where mail sent to an invalid recipient | which a reasonable MTA is capable of knowing is invalid is accepted | instead of being rejected at RCPT TO time. After upload, the process | outlined in option #2 will take effect. | | 4. Qmail is not to be allowed into Debian. | | 5. Further discussion. Don Armstrong 1: With apologies if someone's made suggestions/objections while this is in transit. -- Quite the contrary; they *love* collateral damage. If they can make you miserable enough, maybe you'll stop using email entirely. Once enough people do that, then there'll be no legitimate reason left for anyone to run an SMTP server, and the spam problem will be solved. -- Craig Dickson in 20020909231134.ga18...@linux700.localnet http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]: | 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for | licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal. | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 2. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions, save the RC bug indicated below. Ftpmaster should | perform standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general | packaging issues as normal. with the addition of an RC bug filed | immediately to preventing normal transition for a period of at least a | month after traversing NEW. | | During this period, additional RC (or non-RC) bugs should be filed by | interested parties, and updated qmail packages fixing these bugs | should be uploaded as usual. After a month, the RM or the maintainer | can continue to decide that the package is not acceptable for release | at their discretion, as happens for any package. [If the RM or | maintainer don't reaffirm the transition blocking bug, the ctte will | close the transition blocking bug.] | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 3. Qmail is to be allowed in to the archive after a patch to resolve | the delayed bounces issue, where mail sent to an invalid recipient | which a reasonable MTA is capable of knowing is invalid is accepted | instead of being rejected at RCPT TO time. After upload, the process | outlined in option #2 will take effect. | | 4. Qmail is not to be allowed into Debian. | | 5. Further discussion. I vote: 3 2 1 4 5 -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ pgp4vqFGLVyOA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Don Armstrong wrote: I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]: | 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for | licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal. | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 2. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions, save the RC bug indicated below. Ftpmaster should | perform standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general | packaging issues as normal. with the addition of an RC bug filed | immediately to preventing normal transition for a period of at least a | month after traversing NEW. | | During this period, additional RC (or non-RC) bugs should be filed by | interested parties, and updated qmail packages fixing these bugs | should be uploaded as usual. After a month, the RM or the maintainer | can continue to decide that the package is not acceptable for release | at their discretion, as happens for any package. [If the RM or | maintainer don't reaffirm the transition blocking bug, the ctte will | close the transition blocking bug.] | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 3. Qmail is to be allowed in to the archive after a patch to resolve | the delayed bounces issue, where mail sent to an invalid recipient | which a reasonable MTA is capable of knowing is invalid is accepted | instead of being rejected at RCPT TO time. After upload, the process | outlined in option #2 will take effect. | | 4. Qmail is not to be allowed into Debian. | | 5. Further discussion. I vote 3 2 1 4 5. Don Armstrong -- If you wish to strive for peace of soul, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
On Thu, Aug 20 2009, Don Armstrong wrote: I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]: | 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for | licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal. | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 2. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special | preconditions, save the RC bug indicated below. Ftpmaster should | perform standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general | packaging issues as normal. with the addition of an RC bug filed | immediately to preventing normal transition for a period of at least a | month after traversing NEW. | | During this period, additional RC (or non-RC) bugs should be filed by | interested parties, and updated qmail packages fixing these bugs | should be uploaded as usual. After a month, the RM or the maintainer | can continue to decide that the package is not acceptable for release | at their discretion, as happens for any package. [If the RM or | maintainer don't reaffirm the transition blocking bug, the ctte will | close the transition blocking bug.] | | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. | | 3. Qmail is to be allowed in to the archive after a patch to resolve | the delayed bounces issue, where mail sent to an invalid recipient | which a reasonable MTA is capable of knowing is invalid is accepted | instead of being rejected at RCPT TO time. After upload, the process | outlined in option #2 will take effect. | | 4. Qmail is not to be allowed into Debian. | | 5. Further discussion. I vote: 3 1 2 4 5 manoj -- The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity. Oscar Wilde Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C pgpFJKyIHMxRK.pgp Description: PGP signature
