On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 12:42:11PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> If there is somebody who's ignoring things, that would be yourself,
> given this change has been not only been explicitly requested, but even
> provided _BY_ the CTTE, as you would have easily found out if you
> actually went and
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:17:59AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le mercredi, 4 septembre 2019, 23.53:06 h CEST Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 11:04:57PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > * Most decisions are not just technical decision
On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 11:04:57PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > * Most decisions are not just technical decisions, in many/most cases
> > the decisions have answers that are all correct, but it just depends
> > on the weight of specific trade-offs. How those are weighted depends
> >
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 03:57:52PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> In my platform, one of the things I focused on is trying to drive the
> decision process forward.
>
> I imagine it won't be uncommon to get to a point where the right next
> step is to develop technical or non-technical policy about
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 08:45:53AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Hi Sam,
[side note: while I joined the original discussion, I don't really have
a stake in the outcome, other than the desire to have a working menu]
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 09:06:08AM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
Should Bill
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 09:39:50PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 08:05:56AM +, Sam Hartman a écrit :
Bill, in his role of policy editor said that he believed there was not a
consensus.
Hi Sam,
I think that what you wrote does not reflect what happened:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:34:47AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
You said:
I think that what you wrote does not reflect what happened:
Charles - Russ gave me the green light for committing the changes, see
Charleshttps://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2014/02/msg00068.html.
Only
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 03:06:27AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Wasting people's hard work, and then using a lack of reply to an extra
round of nitpicking as an excuse for having wasted the whole lot?
The only hard work here is maintaining the menu system for ten years.
Cheers,
--
Bill.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 09:50:21PM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
The debian menu is de facto dead; it is time to put it out of its misery.
This kind of language while customary of Sune and Josselin is inappropriate and
rude to any people that have investigated significant time in maintaining menu.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:08:04PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
In March of 2014, Charles Plessy asked the Debian Technical Committee to
review one of the policy editors decisions to revert changes to how
policy talks about the Debian Menu and MIME support. See
http://bugs.debian.org/741573 for
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 07:24:29PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
The technical committee was asked in #717076 to decide whether
libjpeg8 or libjpeg-turbo would be the default libjpeg implementation.
The decision is below:
Dear CTTE,
I am concerned that the rationale for this decision contains
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:30:10PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I question the whole notion of DPL delegation of policy powers to the
policy editors. The power to decide the contents of the debian-policy
package follows from their status as package
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:13:52PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:04:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org writes:
Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency on another package,
which happened to be providing an /sbin/init.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 09:10:51AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Compression several replies into one.
Couple of quick questions:
1) Does libjpeg-turbo (LJT) now completely support the libjpeg8 ABI?
AFAIK it doesn't support the SmartScale, but it does support full libjpeg8
ABI.
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:29:12AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 04:02:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi Bill,
(Sending this to 629...@bugs.debian.org, which is the cloned bug actually
assigned to the TC...)
Too much magic, but thanks anyway.
On Tue, Jun 07
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 01:04:59PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org writes:
Option 1 also implies forcing debian/rules to be a Makefile, which is
think is sensible.
Policy already requires this. The only package in the archive for which
this is not already
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 02:15:37 -0700, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
If this were to be put to a vote today, I would propose the following ballot
options:
1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of
17 matches
Mail list logo
