Bug#994275: Call for votes on "Reverting breaking changes in debianutils"
On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 12:30:54 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > I hereby call for votes on the following ballot to resolve #994275. I vote A > B > FD (which I believe means the outcome is no longer in doubt and we resolve A). > === Resolution A === > > The Technical Committee resolves: > > 1. The debianutils package must continue to provide the which(1) program >until a compatible utility is available in a package that is at least >transitively essential in Debian 12. > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect which(1) to be in either an >Essential package or a transitively Essential package (that is, a >package that is depended on by an Essential package). > > 2. The which(1) program must not print any deprecation warnings. > > 3. We decline to overrule the maintainer of debianutils regarding the >use of alternatives. If another package takes over responsibility >for which(1), then the debianutils maintainers and the other >package's maintainers should coordinate to choose a suitable >mechanism, which might be either versioned Depends/Breaks/Replaces, >dpkg-divert, alternatives or something else. > > 4. The debianutils package must continue to provide the tempfile(1) >program until a compatible utility is available in a package that is >at least transitively essential in Debian 12. > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect tempfile(1) to be in either an >Essential package or a transitively Essential package. > > 5. Programs in debianutils must not be moved to /usr until we have a >project-wide consensus on going ahead with such a move, and any >programs that have already been moved must be moved back. In >particular, this means debianutils must contain /bin/run-parts and >/sbin/installkernel for the time being. > > === Resolution B === > > As Resolution A, except strike point (2) and renumber succeeding items. > > === End Resolutions === signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#994275: Call for votes on "Reverting breaking changes in debianutils"
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:30:54PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > === Resolution A === > > The Technical Committee resolves: > > 1. The debianutils package must continue to provide the which(1) program >until a compatible utility is available in a package that is at least >transitively essential in Debian 12. > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect which(1) to be in either an >Essential package or a transitively Essential package (that is, a >package that is depended on by an Essential package). > > 2. The which(1) program must not print any deprecation warnings. > > 3. We decline to overrule the maintainer of debianutils regarding the >use of alternatives. If another package takes over responsibility >for which(1), then the debianutils maintainers and the other >package's maintainers should coordinate to choose a suitable >mechanism, which might be either versioned Depends/Breaks/Replaces, >dpkg-divert, alternatives or something else. > > 4. The debianutils package must continue to provide the tempfile(1) >program until a compatible utility is available in a package that is >at least transitively essential in Debian 12. > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect tempfile(1) to be in either an >Essential package or a transitively Essential package. > > 5. Programs in debianutils must not be moved to /usr until we have a >project-wide consensus on going ahead with such a move, and any >programs that have already been moved must be moved back. In >particular, this means debianutils must contain /bin/run-parts and >/sbin/installkernel for the time being. > > === Resolution B === > > As Resolution A, except strike point (2) and renumber succeeding items. > > === End Resolutions === > > A: Issue Resolution A > B: Issue Resolution B > F: Further Discussion I vote: A > B > F -- Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#994275: Call for votes on "Reverting breaking changes in debianutils"
> === Resolution A === > > The Technical Committee resolves: > > 1. The debianutils package must continue to provide the which(1) program >until a compatible utility is available in a package that is at least >transitively essential in Debian 12. > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect which(1) to be in either an >Essential package or a transitively Essential package (that is, a >package that is depended on by an Essential package). > > 2. The which(1) program must not print any deprecation warnings. > > 3. We decline to overrule the maintainer of debianutils regarding the >use of alternatives. If another package takes over responsibility >for which(1), then the debianutils maintainers and the other >package's maintainers should coordinate to choose a suitable >mechanism, which might be either versioned Depends/Breaks/Replaces, >dpkg-divert, alternatives or something else. > > 4. The debianutils package must continue to provide the tempfile(1) >program until a compatible utility is available in a package that is >at least transitively essential in Debian 12. > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect tempfile(1) to be in either an >Essential package or a transitively Essential package. > > 5. Programs in debianutils must not be moved to /usr until we have a >project-wide consensus on going ahead with such a move, and any >programs that have already been moved must be moved back. In >particular, this means debianutils must contain /bin/run-parts and >/sbin/installkernel for the time being. > > === Resolution B === > > As Resolution A, except strike point (2) and renumber succeeding items. > > === End Resolutions === > > A: Issue Resolution A > B: Issue Resolution B > F: Further Discussion I vote: A > B > F Thanks, Marga signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#994275: Call for votes on "Reverting breaking changes in debianutils"
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:30:54PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > I hereby call for votes on the following ballot to resolve #994275. The > voting period starts immediately and lasts for up to one week, or until > the outcome is no longer in doubt (Constitution 6.3.1). > > === Resolution A === > > The Technical Committee resolves: > > 1. The debianutils package must continue to provide the which(1) program >until a compatible utility is available in a package that is at least >transitively essential in Debian 12. > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect which(1) to be in either an >Essential package or a transitively Essential package (that is, a >package that is depended on by an Essential package). > > 2. The which(1) program must not print any deprecation warnings. > > 3. We decline to overrule the maintainer of debianutils regarding the >use of alternatives. If another package takes over responsibility >for which(1), then the debianutils maintainers and the other >package's maintainers should coordinate to choose a suitable >mechanism, which might be either versioned Depends/Breaks/Replaces, >dpkg-divert, alternatives or something else. > > 4. The debianutils package must continue to provide the tempfile(1) >program until a compatible utility is available in a package that is >at least transitively essential in Debian 12. > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect tempfile(1) to be in either an >Essential package or a transitively Essential package. > > 5. Programs in debianutils must not be moved to /usr until we have a >project-wide consensus on going ahead with such a move, and any >programs that have already been moved must be moved back. In >particular, this means debianutils must contain /bin/run-parts and >/sbin/installkernel for the time being. > > === Resolution B === > > As Resolution A, except strike point (2) and renumber succeeding items. > > === End Resolutions === > > A: Issue Resolution A > B: Issue Resolution B > F: Further Discussion I vote: B > A > F - e signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#994275: Call for votes on "Reverting breaking changes in debianutils"
> === Resolution A === > > The Technical Committee resolves: > > 1. The debianutils package must continue to provide the which(1) program >until a compatible utility is available in a package that is at least >transitively essential in Debian 12. > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect which(1) to be in either an >Essential package or a transitively Essential package (that is, a >package that is depended on by an Essential package). > > 2. The which(1) program must not print any deprecation warnings. > > 3. We decline to overrule the maintainer of debianutils regarding the >use of alternatives. If another package takes over responsibility >for which(1), then the debianutils maintainers and the other >package's maintainers should coordinate to choose a suitable >mechanism, which might be either versioned Depends/Breaks/Replaces, >dpkg-divert, alternatives or something else. > > 4. The debianutils package must continue to provide the tempfile(1) >program until a compatible utility is available in a package that is >at least transitively essential in Debian 12. > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect tempfile(1) to be in either an >Essential package or a transitively Essential package. > > 5. Programs in debianutils must not be moved to /usr until we have a >project-wide consensus on going ahead with such a move, and any >programs that have already been moved must be moved back. In >particular, this means debianutils must contain /bin/run-parts and >/sbin/installkernel for the time being. > > === Resolution B === > > As Resolution A, except strike point (2) and renumber succeeding items. > > === End Resolutions === > > A: Issue Resolution A > B: Issue Resolution B > F: Further Discussion I vote A > B > F. Christoph signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#994275: Call for votes on "Reverting breaking changes in debianutils"
Thank you very much for starting this vote, Sean. I vote A > B > F. > > === Resolution A === > > > > The Technical Committee resolves: > > > > 1. The debianutils package must continue to provide the which(1) program > >until a compatible utility is available in a package that is at least > >transitively essential in Debian 12. > > > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect which(1) to be in either an > >Essential package or a transitively Essential package (that is, a > >package that is depended on by an Essential package). > > > > 2. The which(1) program must not print any deprecation warnings. > > > > 3. We decline to overrule the maintainer of debianutils regarding the > >use of alternatives. If another package takes over responsibility > >for which(1), then the debianutils maintainers and the other > >package's maintainers should coordinate to choose a suitable > >mechanism, which might be either versioned Depends/Breaks/Replaces, > >dpkg-divert, alternatives or something else. > > > > 4. The debianutils package must continue to provide the tempfile(1) > >program until a compatible utility is available in a package that is > >at least transitively essential in Debian 12. > > > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect tempfile(1) to be in either an > >Essential package or a transitively Essential package. > > > > 5. Programs in debianutils must not be moved to /usr until we have a > >project-wide consensus on going ahead with such a move, and any > >programs that have already been moved must be moved back. In > >particular, this means debianutils must contain /bin/run-parts and > >/sbin/installkernel for the time being. > > > > === Resolution B === > > > > As Resolution A, except strike point (2) and renumber succeeding items. > > > > === End Resolutions === > > > > A: Issue Resolution A > > B: Issue Resolution B > > F: Further Discussion > > I vote: > > A > B > F -- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#994275: Call for votes on "Reverting breaking changes in debianutils"
Sean Whitton writes: > > I hereby call for votes on the following ballot to resolve #994275. The > voting period starts immediately and lasts for up to one week, or until > the outcome is no longer in doubt (Constitution 6.3.1). > > === Resolution A === > > The Technical Committee resolves: > > 1. The debianutils package must continue to provide the which(1) program >until a compatible utility is available in a package that is at least >transitively essential in Debian 12. > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect which(1) to be in either an >Essential package or a transitively Essential package (that is, a >package that is depended on by an Essential package). > > 2. The which(1) program must not print any deprecation warnings. > > 3. We decline to overrule the maintainer of debianutils regarding the >use of alternatives. If another package takes over responsibility >for which(1), then the debianutils maintainers and the other >package's maintainers should coordinate to choose a suitable >mechanism, which might be either versioned Depends/Breaks/Replaces, >dpkg-divert, alternatives or something else. > > 4. The debianutils package must continue to provide the tempfile(1) >program until a compatible utility is available in a package that is >at least transitively essential in Debian 12. > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect tempfile(1) to be in either an >Essential package or a transitively Essential package. > > 5. Programs in debianutils must not be moved to /usr until we have a >project-wide consensus on going ahead with such a move, and any >programs that have already been moved must be moved back. In >particular, this means debianutils must contain /bin/run-parts and >/sbin/installkernel for the time being. > > === Resolution B === > > As Resolution A, except strike point (2) and renumber succeeding items. > > === End Resolutions === > > A: Issue Resolution A > B: Issue Resolution B > F: Further Discussion > > -- > Sean Whitton I vote B > A > F signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#994275: Call for votes on "Reverting breaking changes in debianutils"
On Wed 20 Oct 2021 at 12:30PM -07, Sean Whitton wrote: > === Resolution A === > > The Technical Committee resolves: > > 1. The debianutils package must continue to provide the which(1) program >until a compatible utility is available in a package that is at least >transitively essential in Debian 12. > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect which(1) to be in either an >Essential package or a transitively Essential package (that is, a >package that is depended on by an Essential package). > > 2. The which(1) program must not print any deprecation warnings. > > 3. We decline to overrule the maintainer of debianutils regarding the >use of alternatives. If another package takes over responsibility >for which(1), then the debianutils maintainers and the other >package's maintainers should coordinate to choose a suitable >mechanism, which might be either versioned Depends/Breaks/Replaces, >dpkg-divert, alternatives or something else. > > 4. The debianutils package must continue to provide the tempfile(1) >program until a compatible utility is available in a package that is >at least transitively essential in Debian 12. > >For the Debian 12 release, we expect tempfile(1) to be in either an >Essential package or a transitively Essential package. > > 5. Programs in debianutils must not be moved to /usr until we have a >project-wide consensus on going ahead with such a move, and any >programs that have already been moved must be moved back. In >particular, this means debianutils must contain /bin/run-parts and >/sbin/installkernel for the time being. > > === Resolution B === > > As Resolution A, except strike point (2) and renumber succeeding items. > > === End Resolutions === > > A: Issue Resolution A > B: Issue Resolution B > F: Further Discussion I vote: A > B > F -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#994275: Call for votes on "Reverting breaking changes in debianutils"
Hello, I hereby call for votes on the following ballot to resolve #994275. The voting period starts immediately and lasts for up to one week, or until the outcome is no longer in doubt (Constitution 6.3.1). === Resolution A === The Technical Committee resolves: 1. The debianutils package must continue to provide the which(1) program until a compatible utility is available in a package that is at least transitively essential in Debian 12. For the Debian 12 release, we expect which(1) to be in either an Essential package or a transitively Essential package (that is, a package that is depended on by an Essential package). 2. The which(1) program must not print any deprecation warnings. 3. We decline to overrule the maintainer of debianutils regarding the use of alternatives. If another package takes over responsibility for which(1), then the debianutils maintainers and the other package's maintainers should coordinate to choose a suitable mechanism, which might be either versioned Depends/Breaks/Replaces, dpkg-divert, alternatives or something else. 4. The debianutils package must continue to provide the tempfile(1) program until a compatible utility is available in a package that is at least transitively essential in Debian 12. For the Debian 12 release, we expect tempfile(1) to be in either an Essential package or a transitively Essential package. 5. Programs in debianutils must not be moved to /usr until we have a project-wide consensus on going ahead with such a move, and any programs that have already been moved must be moved back. In particular, this means debianutils must contain /bin/run-parts and /sbin/installkernel for the time being. === Resolution B === As Resolution A, except strike point (2) and renumber succeeding items. === End Resolutions === A: Issue Resolution A B: Issue Resolution B F: Further Discussion -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
