Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution):
I hereby propose the resolution below. I intend to call for a vote no
earlier than after the conclusion of the relevant agenda item in
tomorrow's IRC meeting.
As agreed on IRC
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 07:51:43PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
A libjpeg-turbo to become default libjpeg implementaton (1:1)
B libjpeg8/9 to remain default libjpeg implementaton (1:1)
FD
I vote A FD B.
--
Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution):
I hereby propose the resolution below. I intend to call for a vote no
earlier than after the conclusion of the relevant agenda item in
tomorrow's IRC meeting.
As agreed on IRC, I hereby call for votes on the rsolution below
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution):
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution):
I hereby propose the resolution below. I intend to call for a vote no
earlier than after the conclusion of the relevant agenda item in
tomorrow's IRC meeting
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
As agreed on IRC, I hereby call for votes on the rsolution below.
There options are:
A libjpeg-turbo to become default libjpeg implementaton (1:1)
B libjpeg8/9 to remain default libjpeg implementaton (1:1)
FD
I vote A, B, FD.
--
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution):
I hereby propose the resolution below. I intend to call for a vote no
earlier than after the conclusion of the relevant agenda item in
tomorrow's IRC meeting.
As agreed on IRC, I
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140626 20:54]:
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution):
I hereby propose the resolution below. I intend to call for a vote no
earlier than after the conclusion of the relevant agenda item in
tomorrow's IRC meeting
Ondřej Surý writes (Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution):
I would like to kindly ask if there's anything the rest of us can do
to move this forward, so we have a time for a transition before
next freeze.
This was stalled because of an unfortunate interaction with the
Project Secretary. I
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:39:21PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
This was stalled because of an unfortunate interaction with the
Project Secretary. I think we should press ahead with our resolution.
I have adapted Colin's resolution text. I have:
- specified that the transition plan should
Hi Colin and tech-ctte,
I would like to kindly ask if there's anything the rest of us can do
to move this forward, so we have a time for a transition before
next freeze.
Ondrej
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014, at 19:37, Colin Watson wrote:
We've been carrying over an action in TC meetings for some time
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 06:00:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
My understanding is that the point of virtual packages is so that
several *can* provide it. But you're now telling 1 package that it
can't do that, while you instead could say only one
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140322 01:39]:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:38:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
In general I worry that your interpretation of resolution texts
focuses far too much on the exact words used, and far too little on
the substance of the underlying issues.
In
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 05:37:01PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
To the Project Secretary: Ian raised the point that he feels that option
A should not require 3:1. The Provides: libjpeg-dev here is
essentially a technical device to ensure that packages can declare
Build-Depends: libjpeg-dev
(resending because of some 8-bit header damage)
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution):
So if you really want to prevent using a supermajority, I suggest
you write is so that you at least don't mention the other package
by name but make it more general.
Seriously ?
I also
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140322 00:39]:
(resending because of some 8-bit header damage)
Kurt Roeckx writes (Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution):
So if you really want to prevent using a supermajority, I suggest
you write is so that you at least don't mention
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:38:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
In general I worry that your interpretation of resolution texts
focuses far too much on the exact words used, and far too little on
the substance of the underlying issues.
In this particular case we have two packages both of which
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
My understanding is that the point of virtual packages is so that
several *can* provide it. But you're now telling 1 package that it
can't do that, while you instead could say only one (other) package can
do it in this case.
That's one use of virtual
We've been carrying over an action in TC meetings for some time to draft
a resolution for this, given that the substantive discussion petered out
some time ago. I volunteered to take this on last month and have just
got round to writing something up.
It is probably clear from this text how I am
Hi Colin,
On Do 20 Mär 2014 18:37:01 CET, Colin Watson wrote:
7. The libjpeg-turbo packages in Debian are not yet in a state where
they could be a drop-in replacement for libjpeg8. However,
similar work has been done in Ubuntu and could be adopted.
There actually was a
19 matches
Mail list logo
