On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:13:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
-8-
(1) The REMAIL option should not be supplanted or supplemented by
anything in an /etc/default file. The current behaviour of the
mixmaster init script, to examine /etc/mixmaster/remailer.conf's
REMAIL option,
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [071202 23:14]:
-8-
(1) The REMAIL option should not be supplanted or supplemented by
anything in an /etc/default file. The current behaviour of the
mixmaster init script, to examine /etc/mixmaster/remailer.conf's
REMAIL option, is
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 01:58:47AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
I do think that this bug warrants fixing in stable, I just don't agree that
RCness is the relevant and appropriate standard for whether the TC should
override a maintainer. You seem to be ok with overriding the libconfig
Andreas Barth writes (Re: Call for Votes (Re: mixmaster /etc/default/*)):
I assume the voting means we are not overriding the maintainer, i.e.
this vote doesn't restrict the right of the maintainer to adjust the
behaviour as he considers appropriate.
Absolutely.
For the avoidance of any
Bdale Garbee writes (Re: Package-created usernames):
The second is whether it's acceptable for a Debian package to
*require* a specific username. There seems to be at least an
implication that if the namespace clash potential is eliminated or
significantly reduced, that this would remove the
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:22:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, okay... but shouldn't it still be happening if that's the case?
Unless we've somehow lost a significant number of 10.0.0.0/8 hosts that
were pointing at ftp/http.us.d.o at that point and now aren't, ike is
still the host
Steve Langasek writes (Re: Call for Votes (Re: mixmaster /etc/default/*)):
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:13:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
[1] Choice K: Keep current behaviour and existing policy, as above.
[2] Choice F: Further discussion
I agree with the rationale provided by Ian with
Anthony Towns writes (Re: TC voting and amendment procedure):
The substantive questions haven't been explored. I've been the only one
doing that, and we _remain_ with absolutely no evidence [...]
Well, I think it must be clear to you that I (and others on the
committee) disagree.
The question
Ian Jackson writes (Call for Votes (getaddrinfo)):
-8-
1. RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not be applied to IPv4 addresses
by Debian systems, and we DO overrule the maintainer.
2. RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not be applied to IPv6 addresses
by Debian systems. We do NOT overrule the
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [071206 20:08]:
For the avoidance of any doubt, I don't think that decisions of the TC
should be interpreted as overruling the maintainer unless that is the
only possible interpretation of the resolution's text.
In the past it has always been clearly stated
reassign 438179 glibc
thanks
The Technical Committee has decided as follows:
1. RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not be applied to IPv4 addresses
by Debian systems, and we DO overrule the maintainer.
2. RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not be applied to IPv6 addresses
by Debian systems. We do NOT
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 08:11:51PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
reassign 438179 glibc
thanks
The Technical Committee has decided as follows:
1. RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not be applied to IPv4 addresses
by Debian systems, and we DO overrule the maintainer.
2. RFC3484 s6 rule 9
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Call for Votes (getaddrinfo)):
Thus X wins and the resolution between -8- above has been passed,
overruling the maintainer.
I think we should send our rationales, including dissents, to the bug
report. I've collated the opinions that people attached to their
votes and
* Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [071206 21:41]:
Please DON'T NMU the glibc, we will do the necessary in the next upload
to unstable. Does this also apply to stable?
The tech ctte didn't do a decision about stable, though it seems that
most of us consider it appropriate.
So I would prefer
Steve Langasek writes (Re: Call for Votes (getaddrinfo)):
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 07:51:37PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
This time can we _please_ try to get quorum ? You must send in your
vote within 7 days of me sending this message, for it to count, ie by
approximately 2007-12-06 19:50
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 08:08:06PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes (Call for Votes (getaddrinfo)):
-8-
1. RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not be applied to IPv4 addresses
by Debian systems, and we DO overrule the maintainer.
2. RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not be applied to
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tag 438179 - pending
Bug#438179: Please provide a way to override RFC3484
Tags were: pending confirmed
Tags removed: pending
quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 438179 tech-ctte
Bug#438179: Please provide a way to override RFC3484
Bug reassigned from package `glibc' to `tech-ctte'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
reassign 438179 tech-ctte
thanks
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 08:11:51PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
The Technical Committee has decided as follows:
This is incorrect. The supermajority requirement was not met, see:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2007/12/msg00067.html
As such, no decision's
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 01:25:29AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
7-day period, which has just expired:
X F S M Ian, Manoj
X F M S Andi
M F AJ
F defeats S by 4:0, so S is eliminated.
F defeats M by 3:1, so M is eliminated.
The remaining non-default
Your message dated Fri, 07 Dec 2007 07:17:05 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#438179: fixed in glibc 2.7-4
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
21 matches
Mail list logo
