Hi,
===BEGIN
A: Christoph Berg
B: Matthew Garrett
C: Helmut Grohne
D: Stefano Rivera
E: Timo Röhling
F: Craig Small
G: Matthew Vernon
H: Sean Whitton
===END
I vote H > A = B = C = D = E = G > F
If no-one else wants to be chair when Sean leaves, I'd be willing to do so.
R
On 17/01/2024 14:07, Helmut Grohne wrote:
I somehow missed how Ben's libnfsidmap bug #1058937 works slightly
simpler. Given that $second has a conflict with the installed version of
$first, one can skip that second step and instead install $second
directly with dpkg -i. So no, this weird
Hi,
On 21/12/2023 09:41, Helmut Grohne wrote:
Is it ok to call upgrade scenarios failures that cannot be reproduced
using apt unsupported until we no longer deal with aliasing?
I incline towards "no"; if an upgrade has failed part-way (as does
happen), people may then reasonably use dpkg
Hi,
On 22/09/2023 14:50, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
The current version of the Selenium bindings for all supported
programming languages relies on a Rust executable called Selenium
Manager for managing the webdriver executables required for the
various browsers that the bindings interact with.
Dear Luca,
On 27/08/2023 03:16, Luca Boccassi wrote:
[things]
You've already been asked by a couple of people to moderate your tone in
this thread. I appreciate there is a lot of frustration around
/usr-merge, but your contributions are not helping with that at all. Nor
do they help us have
On 18/08/2023 09:05, Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Ian Jackson
Protecting my mental health
I will try to avoid regularly reading this thread. I hope that now
that I have made the suggestion, others will be able to carry the
conversation. I will be configuring my mail client to disregard my
On 07/08/2023 07:39, Luna Jernberg wrote:
Should this really be July or August?
August - the meeting is later today.
Since I'm writing anyway, my action item from last meeting resulted in
this bug: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1041072
Regards,
Matthew
Package: release-notes
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-c...@debian.org
Hi,
We don't support skip-upgrades, but in practice they can often be made
to work by an experienced administrator.
For trixie, though, packages are going to be allowed to assume
merged-/usr, and the ongoing work to
Hi,
On 03/07/2023 17:55, Sean Whitton wrote:
===BEGIN
A: Christoph Berg
B: Matthew Garrett
C: Helmut Grohne
D: Simon McVittie
E: Stefano Rivera
F: Timo Röhling
G: Matthew Vernon
H: Sean Whitton
===END
I vote:
H > A = B = C = D = G > E = F
Regards,
Matthew
OpenPGP_sig
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 10:04:54 +0100,
Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> ===BEGIN
> The Technical Committee recommends that Timo Röhling be
> appointed by the Debian Project Leader to the Technical Committee.
>
> R: Recommend to appoint Timo Röhling
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 10:03:19 +0100,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> ===BEGIN
> The Technical Committee recommends that Stefano Rivera be
> appointed by the Debian Project Leader to the Technical Committee.
>
> R: Recommend to appoint Stefano Rivera
>
On 26/05/2023 09:24, Luca Boccassi wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 08:39, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Consider: it is consistent to believe that it would have been better for
dpkg not to have had that warning added (quite some time ago now), but
that by now most derivatives that care will likely
Hi,
On 26/05/2023 07:03, Ansgar wrote:
On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 14:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ansgar writes:
Debian going out of its way to tell derivative users to switch back from
merged-/usr to split-/usr is the *opposite* of trying to make things as
smooth for them as possible.
Yes, I
Hi,
This thread has rather veered off the initial bug report.
On 11/05/2023 13:16, Simon Richter wrote:
Hi,
On 5/11/23 10:59, Sean Whitton wrote:
Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include
the patch from #994388[1].
Currently dpkg contains code to emit the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, 09 May 2023 21:26:10 +0100,
Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> === BEGIN
>
> OPTION A:
>
> Under Constitution 6.1.5, the Technical Committee recommends that the
> maintainers of individual packages should not proactively move files
> from the root
On 15/05/2023 16:54, Bdale Garbee wrote:
I could.
Can you provide an example of actual value delivered to Debian from
merged-/usr?
With respect, I don't think this line of argument is going to get us
very far - this bug isn't about whether we should undo usr-merge, so I
don't think a
Dear committee members,
Today is our slightly delayed monthly meeting, at 18:00 UTC. The March
meeting didn't happen, so this is our first meeting since February.
I've not seen any recruitment updates, so I propose we leave that topic
until the May meeting in a couple of weeks (and so don't
Hi,
A quick summary, because my memory is suspect at the best of times...
On 22/04/2023 20:36, Sam Hartman wrote:
Oh, excellent.
I was just considering formally asking the TC to extend the file move
moratorium to trixie.
I've seen a number of people recently proposing moving files in trixie
Hi,
On 13/03/2023 21:35, Sean Whitton wrote:
Minutes of previous meeting:
http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2023/debian-ctte.2023-01-10-18.03.html
I think that should be
http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2023/debian-ctte.2023-02-14-17.58.html
Regards,
Matthew
Hi,
On 09/01/2023 22:30, Sean Whitton wrote:
===BEGIN
A: Christoph Berg
B: Matthew Garrett
C: Helmut Grohne
D: Simon McVittie
E: Matthew Vernon
F: Sean Whitton
===END
I vote thus:
F > A = C = D = E > B
Regards,
Matthew
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi,
On 14/12/2022 18:55, Joachim Wuttke wrote:
At times, python3-numpy in testing depends on two python3
minor versions in parallel. This is unusual, annoying for
many users, and breaking dependent software for some.
Complaints have been filed at
Sandro, would you be opposed to relaxing the
Hi,
On 06/12/2022 00:10, Sean Whitton wrote:
We are scheduled to meet next Tuesday, but I'm not available. We could
either have someone else chair, or push it forward one week -- there's
nothing urgent. Is anyone not available at 6pm UTC on the 20th?
Either option WFM. Happy to be
Hi,
On 25/11/2022 22:39, Sean Whitton wrote:
===BEGIN
The Technical Committee recommends that Matthew Garrett be
appointed by the Debian Project Leader to the Technical Committee.
H: Recommend to Appoint Matthew Garrett
F: Further Discussion
===END
I vote H > F.
Regards,
Matthew
Hi Zack,
Thanks for bringing this to the committee; even if Sean is correct that
we won't act on this report, you've described the issues clearly and I
think it was worth bringing to our attention.
On 26/09/2022 20:28, Zack Weinberg wrote:
It has been known for some time that dpkg has bugs
On 09/09/2022 19:45, Sean Whitton wrote:
Hello,
On Thu 08 Sep 2022 at 10:09PM -07, Steve Langasek wrote:
For the record I do not consider this an override requiring a
supermajority and would abide by a majority TC decision.
Thank you for your input. The TC can just issue advice after
Hi,
Not quite sure where in the relevant threads to put this concern, but.
On 17/07/2022 14:21, Luca Boccassi wrote:
On Sun, 2022-07-17 at 11:34 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 at 00:56:14 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
The patch from user uau that the dpkg maintainer
Hi,
On 21/06/2022 01:31, Sean Whitton wrote:
Hello,
I hereby call for votes on the following resolution:
BEGIN BALLOT
Using its powers under constitution 6.1.5, the Technical Committee
issues the following advice:
1. It is not a bug of any severity for a package with a non-native
On 07/06/2022 07:08, Sean Whitton wrote:
I agree, it's not about the benefits of the source format, we do indeed
understand all the trade-offs by now. It's that certain ideas and
workflows *which are not really about source packages* are made
inconvenient or impossible if we remove this
Hi,
I thought it might be useful to try and summarize where we are with this
bug, which hasn't see much recent activity (not least as there's a TC
meeting later...).
* Questions asked of the TC
The Committee was invited to issue advice on a number of points:
I - continued use of 1.0 native
: Revision of removal of rename.ul from package
util-linux
Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 18:45:01 +
Resent-From: Matthew Vernon
Resent-To: debian-bugs-d...@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Technical Committee
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:41:46 +0100
From: Matthew Vernon
Reply-To: Matthew Vernon , 1003
On 20/04/2022 15:31, Matthew Vernon wrote:
I hereby call for a vote on the following ballot. Unless a TC member
objects to calling for a vote, voting lasts for a week, or until the
result is no longer in doubt.
The voting period is over.
===Rationale
There are two "rename"
Hi,
I hereby call for a vote on the following ballot. Unless a TC member
objects to calling for a vote, voting lasts for a week, or until the
result is no longer in doubt.
===Rationale
There are two "rename" programs - the perl rename, and the util-linux
rename. Debian and its derivatives
Hi,
Thanks for this.
1. While the former "should" is guarded by "requires", I think the
latter can be read as a recommendation. I therefore propose replacing
it with "must" to make the override more obvious.
2. While option B reads fine to me, option A is a little confusing to
me
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback on my previous draft; here's a revised ballot.
I propose a ballot as follows - if no-one suggests further options in
the mean time, I will call for a vote on this ballot on Tuesday, after
the weekend of public holidays.
From a procedural point of view, I am
On 15/04/2022 07:36, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Matthew Vernon dijo [Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 04:47:17PM +0100]:
Backwards-compatibility (and the lack of a compelling argument that
util-linux's rename is significantly superior to the perl rename) means that
/usr/bin/rename in Debian should remain the perl
Hi,
Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this discussion. I think
we're at the point where voting is appropriate.
I propose a ballot as follows - if no-one suggests further options in
the mean time, I will call for a vote on this ballot on Tuesday, after
the weekend of public
Hi,
On 09/04/2022 14:59, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
I was not planning on doing that: stable already does not have
/usr/bin/rename.ul.
People were asking for it to be restored before the stable release,
though, I think? #966468 was opened against version 2.36-1 back in July
2020.
Given
Hi,
On 29/03/2022 21:01, Sean Whitton wrote:
I have Covid, so am not going to be around this evening, sorry.
* DebConf22 CfP -- what sort of talk do we want to submit?
I think I have no particular feeling on this, so happy with whatever you
decide. Sean's "meet the TC" seems a reasonable
On 29/03/2022 21:11, Sean Whitton wrote:
Hello,
On Tue 29 Mar 2022 at 01:01pm -07, Sean Whitton wrote:
Due to both the current interpersonal situation and the impeding
DebConf22 CfP, can we have our meeting a week early? Please let me know
if you can't.
I think I'm the only person who is
Hi,
On 29/03/2022 21:01, Sean Whitton wrote:
Due to both the current interpersonal situation and the impeding
DebConf22 CfP, can we have our meeting a week early? Please let me know
if you can't.
I'm afraid I probably can't be there until probably around 19:30 UTC
(but I don't want to
Hi,
On 29/03/2022 00:55, Sean Whitton wrote:
On Mon 28 Mar 2022 at 10:35PM +02, Christoph Berg wrote:
The problem here is that if ul-extra contains things besides rename,
and it conflicts with the perl rename, people will rightfully complain
that they can't install
On 25/03/2022 16:25, Russ Allbery wrote:
Luca Boccassi writes:
But anyway, it turns out it's all moot because - drum roll - there is a
patch:
https://0x0.st/oNFG.diff
This was shared just now on #debian-devel IRC by user 'uau', linked
here with explicit permission.
This is fantastic,
On 17/03/2022 17:52, Russ Allbery wrote:
Helmut Grohne writes:
Do you think it would be impossible to move forward on this matter in a
consensus-based way?
I don't know. I have some reasons to be dubious, but it's possible that
I'm being excessively pessimistic.
I'm inclined to agree
Hi,
Having joined the committee, I thought it best to try and get up to
speed on this issue. Is my summary correct?
--begin
There are two "rename" programs, one part of upstream util-linux
"rename.ul" and one provided by the rename package "rename.pl"[0]
For a long time, Debian's
===BEGIN
A: Christoph Berg
B: Helmut Grohne
C: Elana Hashman
D: Simon McVittie
E: Niko Tyni
F: Matthew Vernon
G: Sean Whitton
H: Gunnar Wolf
===END
G > A = C = D = E = H > B = F
[rationale: being new I don't really have much of an opinion, other than
the new chair pr
On 17/01/2021 10:29, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
Possibly getting off topic here, but I happened to read a bit of this
discussion and while seeing your comment I thought it might be a good
time to remind you about #934463.
I agree it's off-topic here, so I've sent a message to that bug
On 16/01/2021 01:39, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Matthew Vernon dijo [Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 09:07:03PM +]:
Please overrule the maintainer in #923387 so that it is can be used on
systems with elogind; it has been tested and shown to work thus as well as
being supported by upstream[1
Hi,
On 10/01/2021 20:03, Simon McVittie wrote:
If you intend the scope of this bug to involve overruling maintainers'
decisions in packages other than NM, what other packages/bugs did you
have in mind? Is it just udisks2/#923387, or are there more?
I understand (but I don't think it has been
Hi,
I see that network-manager 1.28.0-2 has been uploaded, with (inter alia)
the following changelog entry:
* Demote libpam-systemd to Recommends.
This allows users to use and experiment with other init systems. Such a
setup is neither tested nor fully supported and users need to be aware
Hi,
On 21/12/2020 23:36, Elana Hashman wrote:
The maintainer, Michael Biebl, reached out to the tech-ctte privately. I
have summarized his reasoning for why he dropped support for elogind and
the init script that prompted this bug:
Thanks. There's little point trying to have this discussion
On 14/12/2020 21:56, Philip Hands wrote:
Could I just check if there's a point of common acceptability which both
sides of this discussion could live with?
[...]
My suggestion for a mutually bearable solution would be that the
network-manager package could have its dependency on
On 15/12/2020 22:07, Sam Hartman wrote:
However, Debian remains an environment where developers and users can
explore and develop alternate init systems and alternatives to systemd
features. Those interested in exploring such alternatives need to
provide the necessary development and packaging
at 17:33:26 +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
I invite the technical committee to rule that:
* The network-manager init script should be restored
* Network-manager should Depend: on default-logind | logind rather than
libpam-systemd
This looks like a request to use the technical committee's power
[I don't need a CC, thanks]
Hi,
I know it was mentioned back in the day, but trying to re-ask it now:
Wouldn't it be possible to ship init scripts for compatibility purposes
from a sysvinit (or maybe a sysvinit-support) package? This would be the
inverse of what happened back when systemd was
Hi,
A few thoughts, if I may:
On 26/07/2020 21:37, Sean Whitton wrote:
Private Discussions
---
One way to solve the perception issue is to have a way for people to
have private discussions with the TC.
I think being able to have some private discussions with the TC could be
On 31/08/15 08:39, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
- issues not having a "mentor" within the committee;
I'd like us to try pursuing the latter idea: for each topic submitted to
us, we'd put one of us in charge of "making sure the issue keeps
moving": reformulating, pinging, leading, etc.
That
On 28/08/15 19:22, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On Thursday 27 August 2015 18:11:56 Ian Jackson wrote:
(c) be destroyed.
Given that there are people who want to maintain it, I think (c) is
unacceptable.[1]
Unfortunately, the people who wants to maintain it are not the same people who
has to carry
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Russ Allbery writes (Bug#636783: supermajority bug):
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
The fix to the constitutional supermajority bug has been delayed
rather. Sorry about that. I have drafted what I think is an
58 matches
Mail list logo
