Re: Bug#698556: Please override isdnutils maintainer's decision to not fix the broken isdnutils package in wheezy

2013-02-26 Thread Russ Allbery 
Andreas Barth  writes:
> * Andreas Barth (a...@ayous.org) [130224 18:43]:

>> Whereas
>> 
>> 1. The technical committee was asked to overrule the decision of the
>> isdnutils maintainer to remove the creation of devices (see #698556).
>> 
>> 2. There is a tested patch ready to use available.
>> 
>> 3. The bug in question is considered release critical by the release
>> team.
>> 
>> 4. In spite of being asked, the maintainer didn't comment on this
>> request.
>> 
>> 5. Considering the current time plan, we don't expect to have other
>> ways to create devices nodes (i.e. via kernel changes and udev) in
>> time for the next stable release.
>> 
>> 
>> The Technical Committee
>> 
>> 1. Decides to overrule the decision of the maintainer of isdnutils to
>> remove the creation of device nodes
>> 
>> 2. Authorizes Christoph Biedl to undo the change with an upload to
>> unstable earliest an week after the decision, unless the maintainer
>> uploads an revert faster.
>> 
>> 3. Asks the release team to allow the fixed package to move to
>> testing for the next stable release.

> Calling for Votes on this resolution (as A) and the default resolution
> (further discussion as F).

I vote A F.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


pgpAFyHpHgjVM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#698556: Please override isdnutils maintainer's decision to not fix the broken isdnutils package in wheezy

2013-02-26 Thread Andreas Barth 
* Andreas Barth (a...@ayous.org) [130227 08:01]:
> * Andreas Barth (a...@ayous.org) [130224 18:43]:
> > Whereas
> > 
> > 1. The technical committee was asked to overrule the decision of the
> > isdnutils maintainer to remove the creation of devices (see #698556).
> > 
> > 2. There is a tested patch ready to use available.
> > 
> > 3. The bug in question is considered release critical by the release
> > team.
> > 
> > 4. In spite of being asked, the maintainer didn't comment on this
> > request.
> > 
> > 5. Considering the current time plan, we don't expect to have other
> > ways to create devices nodes (i.e. via kernel changes and udev) in
> > time for the next stable release.
> > 
> > 
> > The Technical Committee
> > 
> > 1. Decides to overrule the decision of the maintainer of isdnutils to
> > remove the creation of device nodes
> > 
> > 2. Authorizes Christoph Biedl to undo the change with an upload to
> > unstable earliest an week after the decision, unless the maintainer
> > uploads an revert faster.
> > 
> > 3. Asks the release team to allow the fixed package to move to
> > testing for the next stable release.
> 
> Calling for Votes on this resolution (as A) and the default resolution
> (further discussion as F).

I vote AF.


Andi


-- 
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/20130227070413.gg28...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Bug#698556: Please override isdnutils maintainer's decision to not fix the broken isdnutils package in wheezy

2013-02-26 Thread Andreas Barth 
Hi,

* Andreas Barth (a...@ayous.org) [130224 18:43]:
> Whereas
> 
> 1. The technical committee was asked to overrule the decision of the
> isdnutils maintainer to remove the creation of devices (see #698556).
> 
> 2. There is a tested patch ready to use available.
> 
> 3. The bug in question is considered release critical by the release
> team.
> 
> 4. In spite of being asked, the maintainer didn't comment on this
> request.
> 
> 5. Considering the current time plan, we don't expect to have other
> ways to create devices nodes (i.e. via kernel changes and udev) in
> time for the next stable release.
> 
> 
> The Technical Committee
> 
> 1. Decides to overrule the decision of the maintainer of isdnutils to
> remove the creation of device nodes
> 
> 2. Authorizes Christoph Biedl to undo the change with an upload to
> unstable earliest an week after the decision, unless the maintainer
> uploads an revert faster.
> 
> 3. Asks the release team to allow the fixed package to move to
> testing for the next stable release.

Calling for Votes on this resolution (as A) and the default resolution
(further discussion as F).


Andi


-- 
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/20130227070128.gf28...@mails.so.argh.org

Bug#688772: [CTTE #688772] Dependency of meta-gnome on network-manager

2013-02-26 Thread Chris Knadle 
On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 13:31:37, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le lundi 25 février 2013 à 11:43 -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > > 4. We overrule the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to add a
> > > 
> > >dependency from gnome to network-manager-gnome; this dependency
> > >should be removed. If in the opinion of the NM maintainer (and
> > >before the release of wheezy the Chair of the Technical Committee
> > >or an individual delegated by the Chair in consultation with the
> > >Release Team) the concerns raised in §4 of the CTTE decision
> > >#681834 have been addressed through technical means (e.g. by
> > >preventing the starting of NM as discussed in #688772), the
> > >meta-gnome maintainers may freely adjust the dependencies as
> > >usual.
> > 
> > Can we consider that the changes in NetworkManager 0.9.4.0-9 are OK on
> > this matter?
> 
> I think those changes did most/all of the work to resolve the really
> important issues from my perspective.[1] However, Bdale and the RMs
> are the people who have to decide on this, so my opinion doesn't
> really count for anything.
> 
> If anyone else has any comments on why the current version of NM
> doesn't address the concerns in §4 of the CTTE decision, please raise
> them to the bug.

Were the issues relating to wicd and network-manager intercting badly 
addressed somehow?  I know there was a plan [1] to fix this, but I didn't see 
the intended followup.  [There may have been unforseen difficulties with the 
proposed solution.]

Last I checked this as part of #688772, attempting to use wicd caused a 
counterintuitive error message of "Connection Failed: bad password" if 
network-manager was running.  I just tested this again on Sid, and this is 
still the case.  [I don't currently have the ability to test Wheezy for this.]

When this was brought up in the bug report, the response was "network-manager 
can be installed, then disabled", but how to do that wasn't documented 
anywhere in the network-manager package.  Instead the next suggestion was 
documenting this issue in the Wheey errata [2], but I don't see network-
manager or wicd mentioned there, nor mentioned in the Installation Guide [3] 
for Wheezy.

Suggestions?

[1]:  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=688772#464

[2]:  http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/errata

[3]:  http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/install.txt.en

  -- Chris

--
Chris Knadle
chris.kna...@coredump.us


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#688772: [CTTE #688772] Dependency of meta-gnome on network-manager

2013-02-26 Thread Don Armstrong 
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 25 février 2013 à 11:43 -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > 4. We overrule the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to add a
> >dependency from gnome to network-manager-gnome; this dependency
> >should be removed. If in the opinion of the NM maintainer (and
> >before the release of wheezy the Chair of the Technical Committee
> >or an individual delegated by the Chair in consultation with the
> >Release Team) the concerns raised in §4 of the CTTE decision
> >#681834 have been addressed through technical means (e.g. by
> >preventing the starting of NM as discussed in #688772), the
> >meta-gnome maintainers may freely adjust the dependencies as
> >usual.
> 
> Can we consider that the changes in NetworkManager 0.9.4.0-9 are OK on
> this matter?

I think those changes did most/all of the work to resolve the really
important issues from my perspective.[1] However, Bdale and the RMs
are the people who have to decide on this, so my opinion doesn't
really count for anything.

If anyone else has any comments on why the current version of NM
doesn't address the concerns in §4 of the CTTE decision, please raise
them to the bug.


Don Armstrong

1: In case it wasn't clear: thanks to you and Michael for taking the
concerns of the CTTE seriously and working to find a solution;
publishing the decision now instead of earlier was just because of a
lack of time on my part.
-- 
I've had so much good luck recently I was getting sated with it. It's
like sugar, good luck. At first it's very sweet, but after a while you
start to think: any more of this and I shall be sick.
 -- Adam Roberts _Yellow Blue Tibia_ p301

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


--
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/20130226183137.gb18...@rzlab.ucr.edu

Re: [CTTE #688772] Dependency of meta-gnome on network-manager

2013-02-26 Thread Josselin Mouette 
Le lundi 25 février 2013 à 11:43 -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> 4. We overrule the decision of the meta-gnome maintainers to add a
>dependency from gnome to network-manager-gnome; this dependency
>should be removed. If in the opinion of the NM maintainer (and
>before the release of wheezy the Chair of the Technical Committee
>or an individual delegated by the Chair in consultation with the
>Release Team) the concerns raised in §4 of the CTTE decision
>#681834 have been addressed through technical means (e.g. by
>preventing the starting of NM as discussed in #688772), the
>meta-gnome maintainers may freely adjust the dependencies as
>usual.

Can we consider that the changes in NetworkManager 0.9.4.0-9 are OK on
this matter?

-- 
.''`.  Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
  `-


-- 
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/1361901393.10692.8.camel@tomoe