Hello,
On Fri 08 Nov 2019 at 06:04PM +01, Ansgar wrote:
> No, but maybe I expressed myself badly: we have people that complain
> that building Debian source packages with a Debian-specific command is a
> too high burden. This is independent of how source is represented (Git,
> .dsc, rpm,
Sean Whitton writes:
> On Fri 08 Nov 2019 at 04:51PM +01, Ansgar wrote:
>> We already have people complaining that source packages are "too Debian
>> specific" and should be replaced. The tooling above is even more of a
>> problem as third parties currently have to deal with way too many
>>
Hello,
On Fri 08 Nov 2019 at 04:51PM +01, Ansgar wrote:
> We already have people complaining that source packages are "too Debian
> specific" and should be replaced. The tooling above is even more of a
> problem as third parties currently have to deal with way too many
> different ways to even
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
Holger> On Thu, Nov 07Holger> Finally, I don't think it's a good idea
to rush this to a
Holger> vote in 7 days. I'm tempted to mail d-d-a to make people who
Holger> are not regularily read -vote aware of this
Holger> discussion. (There
Holger Levsen writes:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 01:04:20PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>
>> version 2330c05afa4
[...]
>> Choice 3: systemd without Diversity as a Priority
> [...]
>
> I guess this option will get ammendments:
>
> a.) 'systemd without
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 01:04:20PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> version 2330c05afa4
> Choice 1: Affirm Init Diversity
[...]
looks generally like a fine option to me.
> Choice 2: systemd but we Support Exploring Alternatives
[...]
as others have said,
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 01:04:20PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> version 2330c05afa4
>
> Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5)
I fail to see why Constitution section 4.1 (5) is referred here. I'd
better understand section 4.1 (4) and would
7 matches
Mail list logo
