Bug#535645: I strongly suggest...
Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de writes: Correct. There so far is no stated issue with ia32-libs-tools at all. So far there has only been speculation, as Steve pointed out. I do not agree with this statement. On the other hand I think point 4 of the social contract is relevant here: This is even less helpful than the message to which I replied. I guarantee that this style of argument will have absolutely no effect on my opinion in a technical committee discussion. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#535645: I strongly suggest...
Dear ctte, We, the debian amd64 users should be able to pick our own poison, I really prefer to have ia32-libs-tools because this work far more close to debian way of package manage, the ia32-libs is an incomplete lazy solution with a huge package that needs the maintainer to update a small part of it (any library in the bundle) exposing us to security risks by example, any way, the work done by Goswin has been proved and is working obviously needs maintain to being better but Goswin is doing a great job. Why loose a great package that's helps to use practically any ia32 program just by a political reason? The ftpmaster should complain about the package, even moving it to experimental, but not, by any reason only remove it... And finally if my memory is not failing Goswin was the maintainer of ia32-libs and work in a better solution... ia32-libs-tools is a great tool and I hope we can get it back... -- Perhaps the depth of love can be calibrated by the number of different selves that are actively involved in a given relationship. Carl Sagan (Contact) Jaime Ochoa Malagón Arquitecto de Soluciones Cel: +52 (55) 1021 0774
Bug#535645: I strongly suggest...
Jaime Ochoa Malagón chp...@gmail.com writes: We, the debian amd64 users should be able to pick our own poison, I really prefer to have ia32-libs-tools because this work far more close to debian way of package manage, the ia32-libs is an incomplete lazy solution with a huge package that needs the maintainer to update a small part of it (any library in the bundle) exposing us to security risks by example, any way, the work done by Goswin has been proved and is working obviously needs maintain to being better but Goswin is doing a great job. Why loose a great package that's helps to use practically any ia32 program just by a political reason? This sort of message is not likely to be helpful. Technical committee decisions are not a popularity contest, and there have been specific objections to the design of the package previously discussed in this thread. It is not correct to state that the only issues here are political. If you have new information not previously mentioned in the thread to add, please do, but statements of support without additional information should not influence technical commitee decisions. Please remember that the technical committee is not being asked whether or not the design of ia32-libs-tools is useful, but rather to overturn a project delegate decision. This is a higher bar to meet. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
