On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 12:46:30PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Dear secretary,
> (CC'ing FTP Master and TC for information)
>
> The TC has recently been running in circles with different considerations
> about its possibility to override delegate's decisions.
This seems to come up from
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 04:12:38PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> I think this needs either an FD or NOTA option.
Never mind, 6.1.7 says there is no default.
Kurt
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 03:35:54PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Package: tech-ctte
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear TC members,
>
> With the appointment of Marga to the TC and according to our current
> procedures¹, I am hereby announcing my immediate vacation of the chair
> position, trigge
mittedly, the description of the changes between 1.0.1k and 1.0.1q,
> > according to NEWS/CHANGES don't immediately look crazy.
>
> Comparing those against the package changelog and Security Tracker and
> ignoring changes which are apparently only relevant if SSLv2 is enable
On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 11:46:01AM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> Hi,
> Personally I'm in favour of following the openssl point updates and I'd
> like to add an additional data point to the discussion:
>
> CVE-2015-3196 was already fixed as a plain bugfix in an earlier point
> release, but the
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 08:00:59PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> [dropped explicit CCs to RT and TC members]
>
> On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 20:37 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 01:12:42PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > So from what I'm gath
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 08:00:59PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>
> Even a naively filtered diff - excluding documentation and tests -
> between the 1.0.1k tag and HEAD on upstream's stable branch is much
> larger than I'd imagined (1091 files changed, 73609+, 68591-), but
> paging through it the
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 11:57:00AM -0600, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> In this specific case, the specific set of changes which have been made,
> coupled with documenting the policy of upstream for testing and making
> changes to openssl would be a good start.
I've pointed to upstream's policy before
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 02:22:04PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-10-31 at 00:02 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:38:13PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > If there's somethin
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:38:13PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If there's something specific that you'd like the CTTE to try to do
> > beyond what I've just reported now, let me know.
>
> Let me know if you'd like the CTTE to do something beyond what
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 01:12:42PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > I've been waiting for the release team for a while to make a decision
> > > on #765639 for a year now. Coul
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:57:04AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I've been waiting for the release team for a while to make a decision
> > on #765639 for a year now. Could you help in getting a decision?
> >
> > I
Package: tech-ctte
Hi,
I've been waiting for the release team for a while to make a
decision on #765639 for a year now. Could you help in getting a
decision?
I've actually been waiting for longer than that, I can't directly
find all links, but previous discussions about it are at least:
https:/
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 09:19:07PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> [moving back to the bug, because we're starting to discuss the issue
> rather than a TC communications matter.]
>
>
> > "Bdale" == Bdale Garbee writes:
> Bdale> I hear you, I just don't have any idea what to do differently
>
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:49:04PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:33:49PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Option A Reached quorum: 5 > 2
> > Option B Reached quorum: 4 > 2
> > Option C Reached quorum: 3 > 2
> > Option D Reached quorum:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:33:49PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Option A Reached quorum: 5 > 2
> Option B Reached quorum: 4 > 2
> Option C Reached quorum: 3 > 2
> Option D Reached quorum: 4 > 2
> Option E Reached quorum: 4 > 2
> Option F Reached quorum: 4 > 2
> Option G Reached quorum: 4 > 2
Sinc
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 12:33:20PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> If so, it should be possible to take out a lock to prevent new sbuild
> processes on an lvm source chroot, update the source, and then remove
> the lock. But maybe there are buildds which aren't using lvm?
Almost all buildds have sto
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:38:29PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> But once I
> uploaded a next release of busybox to the archive, it was rebuilt
> using older, unfixed glibc, and the original problem reappeared.
I didn't see any request to make sure the chroots are updated.
Not having read the wh
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:47:02AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > I vote
> >
> > A > FD.
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I vote A > FD.
>
> The 1 week constitutional voting period has now closed; with two votes,
> we meet quorum, an
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 01:56:41PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements:
>
> 3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package
>maintainers to transition to systemd by default on upgrades and to
>install systemd by default on new instal
On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 06:53:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support
> the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes
> merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing
> support without a comp
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 06:00:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx 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
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 wh
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-
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:58:25AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140221 19:06]:
> > > The options on the ballot are:
> > >
> > > L Software may not depend on a specific init system
> > > N No TC
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:13:36PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> package maintenance is not
> something that I believe it's in the purview of the DPL to delegate.
I have to agree with this part. I think this is a power that
belongs to the developers.
I think that in such delegation the polic
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:59:34AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:18:41PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > "Bdale" == Bdale Garbee writes:
>
> > Bdale> Steve Langasek writes:
> > >> FWIW I have always assumed that the casting vote is implicit in
> > >> t
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:57:43PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:13:46PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >
> >
> > 3) Ian's resolution on coupling (approximately L from the previous
> > ballot) currently has two votes cast and meets quorum.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:13:46PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>
> 3) Ian's resolution on coupling (approximately L from the previous
> ballot) currently has two votes cast and meets quorum. If the voting
> period expires with no additional votes cast, that resolution would
> pass.
You mean tha
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 12:55:53PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I want to remind everyone on the committee that our quorum on votes is 2.
I understand that there might be confusion on what this quorum
means exactly, and what Steve's vote on those has as effect.
The quorum is
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:13:36PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> I question the whole notion of DPL delegation of policy powers to the policy
> editors.
Can I suggest you start a GR about if you think the DPL is maing
decisions he can not make?
I also suggest you re-read Neil's text on the su
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 05:45:19PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:13:52PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:04:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > "Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" writes:
> > >
> > &g
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:04:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" writes:
>
> > Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency on another package,
> > which happened to be providing an /sbin/init. This was allowed by the
> > Debian Policy of the time as well as by the De
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:04:42PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
> > CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:01:12PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something
> simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)"):
> > I'm currently of the opinion that gnome made an initial decis
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:43:33PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> Le jeudi, 6 février 2014, 21.19:36 Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:38:25PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > I'm guessing that under you're asking fo
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:38:25PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> I'm guessing that under you're asking for the interpretation of
> this in 6.1.1:
> | In each case the usual maintainer of the relevant software or
> | documentation makes decisions initially
>
> An
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:30:25PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>
> Finally, I have hard time seeing under which powers could L be decided
> by the tech-ctte: the policy team hasn't worked on that (§6.1.1), there
> is no juridiction overlap that I could see (nor a disagreement about the
>
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:53:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system
> resolution"):
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > If you agree with this reasoning then I'd be
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > I think there are basicly 2 ways to go about this:
> > - You revoke your decision during the GR process so that when
> >
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:22:15AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I think there are basicly 2 ways to go about this:
> > - You revoke your decision during the GR process so that when
> > the GR is being voted on your decision
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:58:06PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > Please do not assume I have time to read everything. I don't. I
> > actually think I gave advice about this before whic
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:31:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> >> So let me expand on that a little. Image the following options
> >> - A: something that doesn't overrule the ctte (1:1)
>
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:32:53AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 11:09:25PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > > I'm not sure I like the way this is worded, I would h
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:40:22AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
>
> I'd prefer if CTTE members would actually sign their votes. (But I
> guess it's up to the secretary.)
I've actually asked that they do that before, but it's not really
a requirement.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctt
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 11:09:25PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > I'm not sure I like the way this is worded, I would have prefered
> > that you asked me about this before calling for vo
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:05:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
> > CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:15:00PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140205 21:09]:
> > On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> > > >
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> > I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
>
> I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
> amendments. All the options require a
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> == rider for all versions except GR ==
>
>This decision is automatically vacated by any contrary General
>Resolution which passes by a simple majority. In that case the
>General Resolution takes effect and the whole of thi
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:21:10AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
> > I would like to point out that there is a quorum of 2, which has
> > been reached, and that you have 1 week to vote.
>
> Kurt,
>
> It has been suggested to me that now tha
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:30:36PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:53:39AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > I do not expect this to be the TC's last word on the issue, just a first
> > step, so I didn't think about the GR super-majority in the context of
> > this question. Bu
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 09:38:56PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:29:35AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk writes:
> >
> > > this hits exactly the core of the problem:
> >
> > > The minimum supported Linux kernel version in glibc is currently 2.6.16,
> > > relea
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 02:50:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> the TC is probably a much more suitable body to rule on this
I'd like to point out that if the DPL delegated that decision to
ftp-master, and ftp-master made a decission, the DPL can't
override that.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 08:24:09PM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
> Package: tech-ctte
>
> I filed bug #700677 because ntfs-3g has a shared library that ubuntu's
> testdisk links to, but it does not follow the SONAME rules. It seems
> that upstream breaks ABI on every release, and the maintainer feel
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 04:54:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> 2. Our technical objectives do NOT include:
[...]
> (iii) Users who choose to globally disable Recommends should still
> get the desired behaviours as described above in point 1.
This whole "NOT" part is very confusing
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 09:58:37AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 01:51:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > If it's the solution that the TC decide on to resolve the issue, it
> > > sounds like something we could work with, at least imho, from what I've
> > > seen so far.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:31:15AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > The current wording, read literally, means that if I happened to run into
> > Steve Langasek, say, at a social occasion, I am not permitted to mention
> > network-manager and GNOME to him, because that conversation isn't public
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:22:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Do we know for certain that installation of network-manager excludes
> alternatives? Tollef replied to me on debian-devel wondering why people
> who don't want to use network-manager just disable it, which implies that
> there's so
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 07:04:42PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Thijs Kinkhorst writes ("Re: Number typo in the Constitution"):
> > This would of course break previous references to the section numbers, and
> > may be confusing e.g. when browsing older mail archives referencing a
> > specific sectio
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 06:52:40PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> Yes. That's what I meant. How about this:
>
>3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default
> option by its required majority ratio is dropped from
> consideration.
>1. Given
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 06:36:07PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Draft GR for supermajority fix"):
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 06:16:42PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Please do feel free to suggest improvements to the wording. I wan
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 06:16:42PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I'm also not very happy with the wording of supermajority. It's
> > not really defined what it means, but is used. For instance
> > 4.1.5.3 talks about a "3:1 majority" and not about a
> > supermajority. I will probably translate t
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:38:20AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments,
> again"):
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:19:36AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > The way I imagine this working is that we nomi
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:11:21AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>Therefore, in the Debian Constitution amend A.6(3) as follows:
>
>3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default
> option by its required majority ratio is dropped from
> consideration.
>
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:19:36AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments,
> again"):
> >Therefore, to achieve roughly the same effect, the TC makes the
> >following promise. If any TC member gives notice that the TC
> >accept
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:07:04AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> (a) the TC will use its own power under A.1(1) to arrange that
> the amendment appears on the GR ballot as an option;
>
> (b) the TC will use its power under A.1(1) to propose and
> its power under A.1(2)
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:07:38AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> = TC RESOLUTION STARTS =
>
> 1. The Debian Technical Committee hereby exercises its power in
>4.2(1) of the Debian Constitution to propose the following
>General Resolution:
>
>- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS --
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 01:26:47AM +0800, Liang Guo wrote:
> Package: tech-ctte
> Severity: normal
>
> Hi, Technical Committee,
>
> We'd like to decide how the spice[1] should be maintained in Debian.
[ ... background ... ]
This contains a lot of information about what the state of the
package
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 11:56:35AM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
> Hi Secretary, Technical Committee,
>
> Stéphane, in the d-l10n-french list, spotted a number issue in the
> constitution, A.1 being present twice:
> A.1. Proposal
> A.1. Discussion and Amendment
This was already mentioned in #367787.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:43:51PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:56:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Also, the constitution gives the proposer the power to accept
> > > amendments. If a GR was i
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:56:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> Also, the constitution gives the proposer the power to accept
> amendments. If a GR was initiated by the TC, who has the power to
> accept amendments ? Is it just the TC as a whole by its own
> resolutions (which would be rather cu
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:56:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> It looks like the TC are going to be proposing some GRs within the
> next few months. Very likely there will be three:
>
> - Constitutional change to fix the supermajority bug
> - Constitutional change to permit the TC to have priva
On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 12:07:38PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 07:10:30PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > At the conclusion of our standard voting period of one week, there were
> > > three votes of BAC and one vote of AB. (One additional vote of BA
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 04:16:32PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > Based on Ian's last response, I think the ballot has two options plus
> > further discussion, since I'm quite sure that we're not going to outlaw
> > dh:
>
> > A. debian/rules is not required to be a makef
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 05:43:30PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> * Possibly increasing the maximum size of the committee. I would be
> happy with 12, given the busy nature of the existing members.
I assume you want to do that without changing the minimum size (4)
or quorum (2)?
If you change the
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, Willia
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 09:32:20AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I haven't really been following this, but I don't think the ctte has
> > the power to override a delegate, and last I heard ftp-master was a
> > delegatio
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 09:40:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm calling for votes on this issue. The ballot options are given as short
> summaries of the resolutions; please see the provided links for the full
> text of the resolutions.
>
> 1. Decline to override the ftp team decision to r
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:00:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]:
>
> | 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special
> | preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for
> | licensing, copyright, and general pac
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 08:34:45AM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
>
> A separate binary package named git-daemon-sysv or so, that conflicts
> and provides git-daemon-run, is the way I'd do the integration.
Why should it provide git-daemon-run?
In my experience, having the init script in a different b
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 01:13:17PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> First off, I disagree with the initial bug that opened this report and
> agree with Gerrit's response. The purpose of the git-daemon-run package
> is to provide a runit interface for git-daemon; asking that it not use
> runit is missi
All policy seems to have to say about this is:
Packages that include daemons for system services should place scripts
in `/etc/init.d' to start or stop services at boot time or during a
change of runlevel. These scripts should be named
`/etc/init.d/'
It's only a should and not
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:57:31AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Anthony Towns recently announced his decision to step down from
> the Debian Technical Committee:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/01/msg6.html
>
> I thank him on behalf of the rest of the committee and the
> proj
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 02:41:41PM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> The "contrib" section includes (historically) also the reduced
> quality package, so the uninstability of a contrib package could
> be temporary accepted.
contrib already contains such packages as b43-fwcutter, which look
very
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 12:17:18PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Firstly, I think the committee is not doing its job. I've been very
> frustrated with the lack of progress. I think we need to fix this.
> I'm all ears for suggestions but I think more is needed than promises
> to try harder. One pos
For those that didn't notice this yet, 2.7-5 reverted the change of
2.7-4. So testing and unstable uses rule 9 again.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
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 hos
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:10:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Florian Weimer writes ("Re: Bug#412976 repoened - reassign tech-ctte
> (mixmaster /etc/default/*)"):
> > Really? Won't upgrades re-enable disabled services if update-rc.d is
> > used?
>
> Only if you delete _all_ of the links. If yo
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 07:16:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> (I'm resending this lost mail from the 8th of November, intending to
> restart the 7-day clock:)
It seems the 7 day clock has stopped again a few days ago. We actually
saw a total of 1 votes for this ballot, and 2 for one with an
a
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 09:07:16PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx:
>
> > - A simular case is that you have 2 segments, 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.0.1.0/24,
> > and you add a 1.0.0.2 and 1.0.1.2. Now you want clients to connect
> > to the one from it's own
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 02:07:02PM +0200, Wolf Wiegand wrote:
>
> The machine I have access to doesn't support ahosts. getent host
> returns different addresses for ftp.us.debian.org on subsequent calls.
Please either try this python script:
import socket
k = [ socket.getaddrinfo("rule9.erisian.
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 11:56:35AM +0200, Wolf Wiegand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > I haven't seen anybody claim that any of the *BSDs implemented rule 9
> > that also says he tested it, I've only seen reported of FreeBSD saying
> > it didn&#x
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 06:23:06PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> DNS RR is "broken" on Windows XP since SP2, Windows Vista, most *BSDs,
> Redhat and Fedora, and probably any Linux distribution out there
I've just tested XP SP2 myself in various ways. I've tried things
like internet explorer,
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 03:21:09AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> There are 2 ways to look at this. One is from the point of people
> writing an application that connects to some server. The other is from
> people running the servers.
>
> There are dns server implementation
> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:48:06 +0200
> From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: A comment about RFC 3484 address selection
>
> > FWIW, I believe non-subscriber posts are accepted
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:23:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> FreeBSD 6.2, Jan 2007: stable, but not rule 9
> Fedora Core 5, March 2005: stable
> Ubuntu 7.04, April 2007: rule 9
> Debian 3.1, sarge (June 2005): not stable
> OS X 10.4 Tiger (April 2005): not stable
> Windows 2003: stable, but not
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:41:45PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I've attached a small test program. The results are:
> sarge: libc6 2.3.2.ds1-22sarge5: random order
> etch: libc6 2.3.6.ds1-13etch2: ordered results
Maybe I should attach it.
Kurt
#include
#include
#include
#inc
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:03:51AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >
> > Heedless of the effect on the DNS round-robin functionality I describe
> > above, the authors of RFC3484 specified (s6 rule 9) that all addresses
> > should be sorted by "proximity" to the host making the choice - where
> > "pr
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
