Dear members of CTTE,
thank you very much for you decision.
Now I can start with the maintaining of LILO.
Have a nice day,
Joachim (Germany)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [101129 12:06]:
[for reference:
A. lilo should be removed. In the meantime, William is to be sole
maintainer of lilo. His promised request to the ftp team to
remove lilo should be honoured, after
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:20:55PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#587886: future of maintaining of the bootloader
LILO):
No, I don't think so. There's nothing more to be said.
[for reference:
A. lilo should be removed. In the meantime, William is to be sole
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Bug#587886: future of maintaining of the bootloader
LILO):
I'd like to point out that neither of your votes are signed.
This is true. But there is no requirement for TC members' votes to be
signed. If there were any doubt about whether my vote was a forgery I
would get
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [101130 19:31]:
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Bug#587886: future of maintaining of the bootloader
LILO):
I'd like to point out that neither of your votes are signed.
This is true. But there is no requirement for TC members' votes to be
signed
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Don Armstrong wrote:
Is there any objection to starting the voting process on this issue
with the options presented in
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=587886#55 ?
[for reference:
A. lilo should be removed. In the meantime, William is to be sole
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Joachim Wiedorn writes:
Finally it would be nice we could move the new Debian packages into
Debian unstable ...
I agree that Joachim and Matt Arnold should be made the joint lilo
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#587886: future of maintaining of the bootloader
LILO):
Is there any objection to starting the voting process on this issue
with the options presented in
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=587886#55 ?
No, I don't think so. There's nothing more
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
Is there any objection to starting the voting process on this issue
with the options presented in
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=587886#55 ?
Sounds fine to me.
[for reference:
A. lilo should be removed. In the meantime, William is
Hi,
I vote:
1 B
2 A
3 SQ
manoj
--
The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is
comprehensible. Albert Einstein : Understanding the world
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/
4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48
Joachim Wiedorn writes (Bug#587886: future of maintaining of the bootloader
LILO):
Finally it would be nice we could move the new Debian packages into
Debian unstable ...
I agree that Joachim and Matt Arnold should be made the joint lilo
maintainers. Would other TC members please express
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote on 2010-11-22 11:27:
Joachim Wiedorn writes (Bug#587886: future of maintaining of the bootloader
LILO):
Finally it would be nice we could move the new Debian packages into
Debian unstable ...
I agree that Joachim and Matt Arnold should
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think it's clear from William's response that joint maintainership
involving both William on one hand, and one or both of Matt and
Joachim on the other hand, is not tenable.
I think this leaves the Technical Committee with two options:
A. lilo
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:55:50 -0400 (EDT), Joachim Wiedorn wrote:
in the last weeks nothing going on with the package Lilo. Now there is a
new RC bug and Squeeze is already frozen. So I have decided to orphan this
package and give other people the chance to overtake the maintaining of
lilo to
Hello,
in the last weeks nothing going on with the package Lilo. Now there is a
new RC bug and Squeeze is already frozen. So I have decided to orphan this
package and give other people the chance to overtake the maintaining of
lilo to bring it in a good shape before Squeeze will be stable:
For what it's worth:
As promised in my previous post, I tried lilo 23.0 on my old
Pentium II machine, which is an IBM ThinkPad 600. It works
perfectly for me. I do not experience the triple-fault continuous
reboot loop that William claims to experience on his Pentium II
machine.
--
.''`.
Gentlemen,
I just subscribed to this bug log as an interested party.
Allow me to put in my two cents worth, if I may.
(1) On behalf of Debian's lilo users, of which I am one,
please do not remove lilo from the distribution. I used lilo
for many years. When the default boot loader changed to
Hi,
- Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Joachim Wiedorn writes (Bug#587886: future of maintaining of the
bootloader LILO):
because of the discussions of the last weeks mostly on debian-devel
I
have sent this bug report:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi
William, thanks for replying with your position and stating it very
clearly. It's very helpful for us to know exactly what you think.
William Pitcock writes (Re: Bug#587886: future of maintaining of the
bootloader LILO):
[Ian Jackson:]
I've caught up on all of this now. I'm not sure I quite
William Pitcock writes (Re: Bug#587886: future of maintaining of the
bootloader LILO):
Hi,
If you still think that there is some really hard to fix image size
limitation with lilo, could you please provide a more specific
reference.
For the most part, it is worked around by using large
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/10/2010 07:40 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Earlier you said this:
Making a 23.0 release with nothing other
than *broken* patches does not give [lilo a future]
Ie, you implied that that was what Joachim has done. However, now you
agree
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#587886: future of maintaining of the bootloader LILO):
I've caught up on all of this now. I'm not sure I quite understand
the position of the current lilo maintainers. In
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/05/msg00769.html
William writes:
it has
Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de wrote on 2010-07-05 17:46:
If nobody want to do maintaining the lilo package I could do it and I
would do it.
My proposal:
From my side I believe I could work together with Matt Arnold. I see the
following cases:
A) Matt Arnold as Maintainer, myself as
On 07/06/2010 05:48 PM, Joachim Wiedorn wrote:
Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de wrote on 2010-07-05 17:46:
If nobody want to do maintaining the lilo package I could do it and I
would do it.
My proposal:
From my side I believe I could work together with Matt Arnold. I see the
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote on 2010-07-05 15:23:
I've caught up on all of this now. I'm not sure I quite understand
the position of the current lilo maintainers. In
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/05/msg00769.html
William writes:
it has pretty much
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote on 2010-07-05 15:23:
Do we have another person who wants to maintain lilo in Debian ?
If nobody want to do maintaining the lilo package I could do it and I
would do it.
I think that if we do, and the current maintainers want to remove it,
we
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: normal
Hello,
Since six weeks I see a very problematic situation of LILO maintaining
and I don't know how this problem could be solved.
Since the initial mail from William Pitcock, the LILO maintainer
(2010-05-22):
Hello,
because of the discussions of the last weeks mostly on debian-devel I
have sent this bug report:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=587886
to the Technical Committee of Debian to find a solution.
I invite you to write a summary of your position and send it to this bug
28 matches
Mail list logo
