Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: Vote! on supposedly controversial tech ctte question
Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move into a separate package"):
> My reason for wanting further discussion is that I'm willing to let
> the maintainer have some discretion, but b
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to
move into a separate package"):
> Here is my vote, though couched in terms biased the other way:
I'm sorry you didn't like my wording. But, the discussion /was/ about
whether to split the
For history of this resolution, see earlier postings on the tech ctte
list. The committee has voted as follows:
Bdale FD, B, A
Ian A, FD, B
Manoj B, FD, A
Wichert A, FD, B
Dale no response
Guy no response
Jason no response
Raul no respons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) writes:
> Votes (rankings) [1] so far are:
>Ian A, FD, B
>Wichert A, FD, B
>
> I was expecting Bdale and Manoj to have a different view. Manoj,
> Bdale, are you going to vote ? Is anyone else on the committee paying
> any attention at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Here is my vote, though couched in terms biased the other way:
1BVersion B (split packages, ensure that properly installed
packages actually work)
2FD Further Discussion
3AVersion A (Allow pa
See my call for votes last Friday:
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 19:40:15 +0100
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move into a
separate package
Votes (rankings) [1] so far are:
Ian A, FD, B
Wichert A, FD
Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
> See below for the full text, and my last message for my views.
> (Wichert said he wanted until at least the 5th and hasn't said
> anything more, so ...)
So I'm here.
> I hereby call for a vote on this resolution. We'll vote on the whole
> lot on one ballot - effec
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move
into a separate package"):
...
> I hereby call for a vote on this resolution.
Just a reminder about the voting period. That CFV of mine was
timestamped by lists.debian.org as:
Received: from chiark.gr
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move
into a separate package"):
> I therefore hereby propose the following two alternative versions of a
> resolution for this issue:
See below for the full text, and my last message for my views.
(Wicher
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move
into a separate package"):
> For reference, I'm actually with Ian on this issue; I don't see much
> point creating a new package for cardinfo and dealing with the hassle
> of cardinfo di
On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 07:19:59PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Version B (Anthony and Manoj, I think):
For reference, I'm actually with Ian on this issue; I don't see much
point creating a new package for cardinfo and dealing with the hassle
of cardinfo disappearing on an apt-get dist-upgrade and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) writes:
> * No-one else on the committee has said anything else of substance.
I have personally been willing to tolerate the situation where a package
delivers several binaries, one of which might only work if some "s
Wichert Akkerman writes ("Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to
move into a separate package"):
> Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I therefore hereby propose the following two alternative versions of a
> > resolution for this issue:
>
> Can we pleas
Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
> I therefore hereby propose the following two alternative versions of a
> resolution for this issue:
Can we please wait with a vote until July 5? I'm afraid I'm currently
really swamped with both work, Debian security and SPI tasks.
Wichert.
--
_
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#119517: pcmcia-cs: cardinfo binary needs to move
into a separate package"):
> We haven't ever been here before, but it seems to me that the best
> course of action would be to formulate a resolution overruling the
> pcmcia-cs maintainer's
The current state of this seems to be:
* Everyone agrees that it's not ideal for programs to fail in this
way. There is disagreement about whether it should be always strictly
forbidden in every case, or whether there are other tradeoffs
etc. that might justify it. (I can't quite make out whethe
>>"Adam" == Adam Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> I'm going to lend my two cents here and agree with the people who think
Adam> that "Suggests" is good enough for this particular dependency.
Adam> If we believe that "installation of a package must require that all
Adam> functionality
17 matches
Mail list logo
