Hi,
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
Speaking personally, without specific patches which have been discussed
with the maintainers of the init package and well tested, I'm unlikely
to vote any resolution on this issue above FD.
Does this include the no change is required option? I would
Hi.
Thanks for your hard work.
Over the past years you've put in a lot of work in the TC.
I think you were one of the forces that really pushed the TC to be a
viable decision making body.
You seemed to really care that when issues were brought to the TC, they
were considered and a decision made.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
Speaking personally, without specific patches which have been discussed
with the maintainers of the init package and well tested, I'm unlikely
to vote any resolution on this issue above FD.
Does this
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
On 11/20/2014 06:27 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Does this include the no change is required option?
I don't think we have such an option even proposed. [Or even, any
options.] I'd probably be OK with
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
I think we should give people a bit more time to come up with options,
but if no one is even moving by our IRC meeting on December 4th, then
something along these lines seems reasonable to me.
I agree.
Bdale
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
+++ Ben Longbons [2014-11-19 22:18 -0800]:
If the cross tools miss jessie and go in jessie-backports, that will
require a significant amount of knowledge and discipline on the part
of all the package maintainers involved, to make sure that they always
have matching versions despite being in
+++ Don Armstrong [2014-11-19 16:41 -0800]:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Helmut Grohne wrote:
I have to admit that the code is not exactly lightweight. I do
understand the desire to get rid it and asked that a ctte ruling does
not apply beyond jessie for that reason.
Are people who are doing
7 matches
Mail list logo
