CINXE.COM

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html><head> <link rel="icon" href="/favicon.png"> <title>#367709 - requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i). - Debian Bug report logs</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8"> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/bugs.css" type="text/css"> <link rel="canonical" href="<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709">367709</a>"> <script type="text/javascript">  </script> </head> <body> <h1>Debian Bug report logs - <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org">#367709</a><br> requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).</h1> <div class="versiongraph"></div> <div class="pkginfo"> <p>Package: <a class="submitter" href="pkgreport.cgi?package=tech-ctte">tech-ctte</a>; Maintainer for <a href="pkgreport.cgi?package=tech-ctte">tech-ctte</a> is <a href="pkgreport.cgi?maint=debian-ctte%40lists.debian.org">Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></a>; </p> </div> <div class="buginfo"> <p>Reported by: <a href="pkgreport.cgi?submitter=sven.luther%40wanadoo.fr">Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr></a></p> <p>Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:18:06 UTC</p> <p>Owned by: <a href="pkgreport.cgi?owner=ajt%40debian.org">ajt@debian.org</a></p> <p>Severity: normal</p> <p></p> <p><strong>Done:</strong> Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk></p> <p>Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.<p></div> <p><input id="uselessmesages" type="checkbox"><label for="uselessmessages">Display info messages</label></p><div class="msgreceived"><p>View this report as an <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes">mbox folder</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;mboxstatus=yes">status mbox</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;mboxmaint=yes">maintainer mbox</a></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="1"></a> <strong>Report forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=2">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=2">mbox</a>, <a href="#1">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="3"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr></code>:<br> New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=4">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=4">mbox</a>, <a href="#3">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="5"></a><a name="msg5"></a><a href="#5">Message #5</a> received at submit@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=5">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=5">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?body=On%20Wed%2C%2017%20May%202006%2021%3A51%3A52%20%2B0200%20Sven%20Luther%20%3Csven.luther%40wanadoo.fr%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20Package%3A%20tech-ctte%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Hi%2C%20...%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20I%20am%20sorry%20to%20ask%20again%20the%20help%20of%20the%20technical%20comittee%20in%20such%20a%20short%0A%3E%20time%2C%20but%20this%20time%20it%20is%20a%20true%20technical%20issue%2C%20altough%20there%20is%20a%20bit%20of%0A%3E%20the%20social%20issues%20overshadowing%20it%20too%2C%20by%20virtue%20of%20the%20folk%20involved.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Some%20time%20back%2C%20Xavier%20Oswald%20started%20working%20on%20a%20new%20graphical%20partitioner%0A%3E%20for%20g-i%2C%20as%20part%20of%20his%20studie%27s%20%27stage%27%20%28err%2C%20practikum%20in%20german%2C%20no%20idea%20in%0A%3E%20english%29.%20The%20original%20project%20asked%20for%20a%20reuse%20of%20the%20gparted%20code%20base%2C%20as%0A%3E%20well%20as%20integrating%20the%20partimage%20technology.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20After%20some%20discussion%2C%20this%20was%20vetoed%20by%20the%20d-i%20people%2C%20who%20didn%27t%20want%20to%0A%3E%20have%20any%20C%2B%2B%20stuff%20in%20the%20installer%2C%20even%20though%20it%20was%20probably%20not%20going%20to%0A%3E%20make%20such%20a%20size%20increase.%20A%20few%20other%20also%20commented%20negatively%20on%20it%2C%20the%0A%3E%20gcc%20maintainer%2C%20doko%2C%20never%20even%20responded%20to%20our%20queries%20due%20to%20that.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20As%20a%20result%2C%20Xavier%20reimplemented%20gparted%20in%20C%2C%20and%20altough%20he%20made%20progress%2C%0A%3E%20it%20remains%20to%20see%20if%20his%20work%20will%20be%20in%20time%20for%20etch.%20In%20any%20case%20the%20idea%0A%3E%20of%20reusing%20partimage%20is%20abandoned%20because%20there%20is%20too%20little%20time%20to%0A%3E%20reimplement%20it%20in%20C%2C%20and%20it%20is%20probably%20a%20more%20critical%20and%20complicated%20code%0A%3E%20base.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20That%20said%2C%20with%20the%20advent%20of%20g-i%2C%20there%20are%20other%20usages%20of%20.udeb%20packages%2C%0A%3E%20and%20the%20g-i%20infrastructure%20itself%20leaves%20the%20door%20open%20to%20a%20wide%20variety%20of%0A%3E%20innovative%20and%20interesting%20applications%2C%20not%20necessarily%20around%20the%20core%20d-i%0A%3E%20technologies.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Among%20those%20applications%2C%20integrating%20the%20new%20partitioner%20and%20a%20partimage%0A%3E%20derivative%2C%20would%20allow%20for%20a%20ghost-like%20non-d-i%20standalone%20image%2C%20which%20would%0A%3E%20probably%20be%20of%20interest%20to%20many%20people.%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Furthermore%2C%20with%20the%20inclusion%20of%20SDL%20and%20some%20gaming%20tools%20previsted%20for%0A%3E%20etch%2C%20could%20lead%20the%20way%20of%20easy%20reuse%20of%20that%20technology%20for%20standalone%0A%3E%20games%2C%20usable%20in%20small%20embedded%20systems%2C%20or%20even%20some%20freevo%20thingy%20would%0A%3E%20allow%20to%20create%20images%20suitable%20for%20a%20tivo%20like%20setup%2C%20running%20entirely%20from%20a%0A%3E%20flash%20image%20and%20so%20on.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20The%20applications%20are%20many%2C%20and%20portend%20a%20very%20bright%20future%20for%20the%20.udeb%0A%3E%20format%2C%20as%20well%20as%20an%20area%20of%20developpment%20which%20has%20typically%20not%20been%0A%3E%20debian%27s%20strongest%20place%2C%20despite%20meritatory%20efforts%20like%20the%20emdebian%20stuff.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20So%2C%20now%20that%20this%20context%20is%20etablished%2C%20and%20i%20hope%20i%20forgot%20none%20of%20it%20this%0A%3E%20time%20%3A%29%2C%20i%20file%20this%20bug%20to%20request%20that%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20be%20created%2C%20either%0A%3E%20by%20the%20gcc%20maintainers%20%28easier%20and%20better%29%2C%20or%20as%20a%20patch%20which%20the%20gcc%0A%3E%20maintainer%20would%20then%20apply.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20This%20leads%20the%20way%20of%20a%20usage%20of%20the%20.udebs%20format%20beyond%20the%20sole%20scope%20of%0A%3E%20d-i%2C%20and%20it%20is%20envisageable%20that%20other%20libraries%20become%20.udebized%20in%20the%0A%3E%20future%2C%20or%20even%20stuff%20like%20the%20java%20vms%20or%20whatever%20else%20may%20be%20usefull%20in%20the%0A%3E%20semi-embedded%20space.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20I%20hope%20to%20have%20been%20clear%20in%20this%20report%2C%20and%20provided%20good%20arguments%20for%20this%0A%3E%20case.%20I%20file%20it%20now%2C%20because%20the%20attendance%20of%20many%20people%20at%20debconf%20will%0A%3E%20probably%20make%20the%20discussion%20about%20this%20topic%20easier.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20And%20again%2C%20one%20last%20clarification%2C%20this%20is%20not%20aimed%20for%20inclusion%20into%20d-i%2C%0A%3E%20as%20the%20d-i%20people%20have%20clearly%20rejected%20such%2C%20and%20will%20probably%20not%20be%0A%3E%20something%20that%20will%20be%20releasable%20as%20part%20of%20etch%2C%20but%20would%20live%20at%20the%0A&In-Reply-To=%3C20060517195151.GA7228%40powerlinux.fr%3E&References=%3C20060517195151.GA7228%40powerlinux.fr%3E&subject=Re%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20in%20order%20to%20produce%20c%2B%2B%20based%20images%20based%20on%20d-i%20technology%20%28but%20not%20d-i%29.">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=sven.luther%40wanadoo.fr" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> submit@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Cc:</span> x.oswald@free.fr</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Wed, 17 May 2006 21:51:52 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">Package: tech-ctte Hi, ... I am sorry to ask again the help of the technical comittee in such a short time, but this time it is a true technical issue, altough there is a bit of the social issues overshadowing it too, by virtue of the folk involved. Some time back, Xavier Oswald started working on a new graphical partitioner for g-i, as part of his studie's 'stage' (err, practikum in german, no idea in english). The original project asked for a reuse of the gparted code base, as well as integrating the partimage technology. After some discussion, this was vetoed by the d-i people, who didn't want to have any C++ stuff in the installer, even though it was probably not going to make such a size increase. A few other also commented negatively on it, the gcc maintainer, doko, never even responded to our queries due to that. As a result, Xavier reimplemented gparted in C, and altough he made progress, it remains to see if his work will be in time for etch. In any case the idea of reusing partimage is abandoned because there is too little time to reimplement it in C, and it is probably a more critical and complicated code base. That said, with the advent of g-i, there are other usages of .udeb packages, and the g-i infrastructure itself leaves the door open to a wide variety of innovative and interesting applications, not necessarily around the core d-i technologies. Among those applications, integrating the new partitioner and a partimage derivative, would allow for a ghost-like non-d-i standalone image, which would probably be of interest to many people. Furthermore, with the inclusion of SDL and some gaming tools previsted for etch, could lead the way of easy reuse of that technology for standalone games, usable in small embedded systems, or even some freevo thingy would allow to create images suitable for a tivo like setup, running entirely from a flash image and so on. The applications are many, and portend a very bright future for the .udeb format, as well as an area of developpment which has typically not been debian's strongest place, despite meritatory efforts like the emdebian stuff. So, now that this context is etablished, and i hope i forgot none of it this time :), i file this bug to request that a libstdc++ .udeb be created, either by the gcc maintainers (easier and better), or as a patch which the gcc maintainer would then apply. This leads the way of a usage of the .udebs format beyond the sole scope of d-i, and it is envisageable that other libraries become .udebized in the future, or even stuff like the java vms or whatever else may be usefull in the semi-embedded space. I hope to have been clear in this report, and provided good arguments for this case. I file it now, because the attendance of many people at debconf will probably make the discussion about this topic easier. And again, one last clarification, this is not aimed for inclusion into d-i, as the d-i people have clearly rejected such, and will probably not be something that will be releasable as part of etch, but would live at the fringes of it, until a better integration may be possible at the etch+1 stage. Friendly, Sven Luther </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="6"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=7">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=7">mbox</a>, <a href="#6">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="8"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>moth@debian.org</code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=9">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=9">mbox</a>, <a href="#8">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="10"></a><a name="msg10"></a><a href="#10">Message #10</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=10">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=10">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?body=On%20Wed%2C%2017%20May%202006%2017%3A06%3A04%20-0400%20%22Raul%20Miller%22%20%3Cmoth.debian%40gmail.com%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20what%20you%27re%20asking.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Ideally%2C%20I%27d%20like%20to%20see%20three%20things%3A%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%281%29%20A%20concise%20description%20of%20the%20technical%20conflict%20that%20needs%20to%20be%20resolved.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%282%29%20Good%20background%20material%20for%20understanding%20any%20subtle%20issues%0A%3E%20underlying%20the%20conflict.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%283%29%20A%20concise%2C%20specific%20and%20unambiguous%20proposal%20for%20dealing%20with%20the%20conflict.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20It%20looks%20to%20me%20as%20if%20you%27ve%20put%20quite%20a%20lot%20of%20effort%20into%20%282%29.%0A%3E%20However%2C%20I%27m%20not%20at%20all%20certain%20I%20know%20what%20obstacle%20you%20are%20running%0A%3E%20into%2C%20and%20I%27ve%20some%20uncertainties%20about%20what%20you%20are%20proposing.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Have%20you%20talked%20to%20the%20di%20people%20about%20this%20issue%3F%20%20Have%20they%20raised%0A%3E%20any%20objections%3F%20%20If%20so%2C%20what%20are%20they%3F%20%20%28We%20should%20get%20involved%20if%20you%0A%3E%20feel%20that%20they%20are%20making%20a%20choice%20which%20is%20technically%20incorrect%20and%0A%3E%20which%20you%20can%27t%20resolve%20directly.%29%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Thanks%2C%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20--%20%0A%3E%20Raul%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20in%20order%20to%20produce%20c%2B%2B%20based%20images%20based%20on%20d-i%20technology%20%28but%20not%20d-i%29.&References=%3C20060517195151.GA7228%40powerlinux.fr%3E%0A%20%3Cd0461dbe0605171406m206647ccgc3226cd050bcadec%40mail.gmail.com%3E&In-Reply-To=%3Cd0461dbe0605171406m206647ccgc3226cd050bcadec%40mail.gmail.com%3E">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=moth.debian%40gmail.com" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> "Raul Miller" <moth.debian@gmail.com></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> "Sven Luther" <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>, 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Wed, 17 May 2006 17:06:04 -0400</div> </div> <pre class="message flowed">I'm not sure what you're asking. Ideally, I'd like to see three things: (1) A concise description of the technical conflict that needs to be resolved. (2) Good background material for understanding any subtle issues underlying the conflict. (3) A concise, specific and unambiguous proposal for dealing with the conflict. It looks to me as if you've put quite a lot of effort into (2). However, I'm not at all certain I know what obstacle you are running into, and I've some uncertainties about what you are proposing. Have you talked to the di people about this issue? Have they raised any objections? If so, what are they? (We should get involved if you feel that they are making a choice which is technically incorrect and which you can't resolve directly.) Thanks, -- Raul </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="11"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=12">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=12">mbox</a>, <a href="#11">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="13"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=14">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=14">mbox</a>, <a href="#13">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="15"></a><a name="msg15"></a><a href="#15">Message #15</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=15">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=15">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?References=%3C20060517195151.GA7228%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3Cd0461dbe0605171406m206647ccgc3226cd050bcadec%40mail.gmail.com%3E%0A%20%3C446EDA6B.9050908%40err.no%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20in%20order%20to%20produce%20c%2B%2B%0A%20based%20images%20based%20on%20d-i%20technology%20%28but%20not%20d-i%29.&In-Reply-To=%3C446EDA6B.9050908%40err.no%3E&body=On%20Sat%2C%2020%20May%202006%2010%3A59%3A23%20%2B0200%20Tollef%20Fog%20Heen%20%3Ctfheen%40err.no%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20Raul%20Miller%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Have%20you%20talked%20to%20the%20di%20people%20about%20this%20issue%3F%20%20Have%20they%20raised%0A%3E%20%3E%20any%20objections%3F%20%20If%20so%2C%20what%20are%20they%3F%20%20%28We%20should%20get%20involved%20if%20you%0A%3E%20%3E%20feel%20that%20they%20are%20making%20a%20choice%20which%20is%20technically%20incorrect%20and%0A%3E%20%3E%20which%20you%20can%27t%20resolve%20directly.%29%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20I%27ve%20had%20this%20discussion%20with%20Sven%20a%20few%20times%20on%20IRC%20and%20even%20though%20%0A%3E%20I%27m%20not%20a%20particularly%20active%20d-i%20developer%2C%20I%20think%20I%20can%20help%20answer%20%0A%3E%20your%20questions.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20udebs%20are%20made%20for%20one%20particular%20purpose%3A%20supporting%20d-i.%20%20They%27re%20not%20%0A%3E%20made%20as%20a%20general%20%22small%20and%20stripped%20system%22%20approach.%20%20They%27re%20free%20to%20%0A%3E%20violate%20Debian%20policy%20%28by%20not%20shipping%20documentation%2C%20eg%29%2C%20but%20they%20%0A%3E%20should%20support%20d-i.%20%20Having%20other%20packages%20packaged%20as%20udebs%20makes%20%0A%3E%20testing%20migration%20harder%20and%20can%20in%20some%20cases%20cause%20problems%20for%20the%20%0A%3E%20installer%2C%20such%20as%20needlessly%20installing%20udebs%20due%20to%20priority.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20The%20specific%20request%20here%20is%20not%20just%20for%20a%20udeb%2C%20but%20for%20introducing%20%0A%3E%20C%2B%2B%20into%20the%20realm%20of%20d-i.%20%20I%20think%20I%20can%20speak%20for%20the%20d-i%20team%20when%20I%20%0A%3E%20say%20that%20they%20don%27t%20even%20want%20to%20tempt%20people%20into%20writing%20code%20using%20%0A%3E%20C%2B%2B%20for%20d-i%20%28due%20to%20space%20issues%20as%20well%20as%20symbol%20mangling%20issues%2C%20%0A%3E%20etc%29%2C%20so%20in%20the%20same%20way%20that%20a%20suggestion%20to%20include%20perl%2C%20python%2C%20ruby%20%0A%3E%20or%20lua%20udebs%20would%20be%20opposed%2C%20a%20request%20to%20include%20C%2B%2B%20udebs%20is%20opposed.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20I%20believe%20Sven%20would%20be%20better%20served%20by%20either%20using%20standard%20debs%20%28and%20%0A%3E%20udebs%2C%20as%20appropriate%29%20and%20mangling%20those%2C%20then%20put%20them%20into%20a%20firmware%20%0A%3E%20image%20or%20invent%20another%20format%20of%20debs-but-not-debs%20and%20use%20those%20as%20a%20%0A%3E%20basis%20for%20same.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20-%20tfheen%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=tfheen%40err.no" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Sat, 20 May 2006 10:59:23 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message flowed">Raul Miller wrote: > Have you talked to the di people about this issue? Have they raised > any objections? If so, what are they? (We should get involved if you > feel that they are making a choice which is technically incorrect and > which you can't resolve directly.) I've had this discussion with Sven a few times on IRC and even though I'm not a particularly active d-i developer, I think I can help answer your questions. udebs are made for one particular purpose: supporting d-i. They're not made as a general "small and stripped system" approach. They're free to violate Debian policy (by not shipping documentation, eg), but they should support d-i. Having other packages packaged as udebs makes testing migration harder and can in some cases cause problems for the installer, such as needlessly installing udebs due to priority. The specific request here is not just for a udeb, but for introducing C++ into the realm of d-i. I think I can speak for the d-i team when I say that they don't even want to tempt people into writing code using C++ for d-i (due to space issues as well as symbol mangling issues, etc), so in the same way that a suggestion to include perl, python, ruby or lua udebs would be opposed, a request to include C++ udebs is opposed. I believe Sven would be better served by either using standard debs (and udebs, as appropriate) and mangling those, then put them into a firmware image or invent another format of debs-but-not-debs and use those as a basis for same. - tfheen </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="16"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=17">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=17">mbox</a>, <a href="#16">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="18"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=19">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=19">mbox</a>, <a href="#18">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="20"></a><a name="msg20"></a><a href="#20">Message #20</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=20">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=20">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?In-Reply-To=%3C20060604164555.GA7060%40mails.so.argh.org%3E&References=%3C20060517195151.GA7228%40powerlinux.fr%3E%0A%20%3C20060604164555.GA7060%40mails.so.argh.org%3E&subject=Re%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20in%20order%20to%20produce%20c%2B%2B%20based%20images%20based%20on%20d-i%20technology%20%28but%20not%20d-i%29.&body=On%20Sun%2C%204%20Jun%202006%2018%3A45%3A55%20%2B0200%20Andreas%20Barth%20%3Caba%40not.so.argh.org%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20Hi%2C%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%2A%20Sven%20Luther%20%28sven.luther%40wanadoo.fr%29%20%5B060517%2012%3A56%5D%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20That%20said%2C%20with%20the%20advent%20of%20g-i%2C%20there%20are%20other%20usages%20of%20.udeb%20packages%2C%0A%3E%20%3E%20and%20the%20g-i%20infrastructure%20itself%20leaves%20the%20door%20open%20to%20a%20wide%20variety%20of%0A%3E%20%3E%20innovative%20and%20interesting%20applications%2C%20not%20necessarily%20around%20the%20core%20d-i%0A%3E%20%3E%20technologies.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Actually%2C%20what%20we%20miss%20here%20is%20that%20the%20actual%20maintainers%20opposed%20this%0A%3E%20proposal.%20AFAIK%20Sven%20has%20asked%20it%20as%20part%20of%20the%20d-i%20section%2C%20and%20of%0A%3E%20course%2C%20if%20it%20is%20not%20used%20by%20the%20installer%2C%20there%20is%20no%20reason%20to%0A%3E%20provide%20it%20inside%20of%20the%20d-i%20udeb%20section%20%28btw%20the%20only%20one%20we%20currently%0A%3E%20have%29.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20What%20we%20need%20if%20it%20should%20be%20used%20outside%20of%20d-i%3A%0A%3E%20-%20A%20clear%20consensus%20of%20the%20embedded%20people%20or%20so%20to%20use%20udebs%20%28AFAIK%0A%3E%20%20%20there%20is%20no%20consensus%20about%20that%20right%20now%2C%20and%20even%20not%20discussed%20out%0A%3E%20%20%20right%20now%29.%0A%3E%20-%20Asking%20the%20relevant%20maintainers%20%28that%20is%20%2Anot%2A%20the%20d-i%20team%29%20to%0A%3E%20%20%20-%20add%20other%20udeb%20section%28s%29%2C%20by%20the%20ftp-masters%0A%3E%20%20%20-%20asking%20the%20maintainer%20to%20add%20non-d-i-udebs%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20So%2C%20I%20propose%20the%20following%20conclusions%20from%20us%3A%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20WHEREAS%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%201.%20Sven%20Luther%20asks%20us%20to%20enforce%20the%20maintainer%20to%20add%20an%20udeb%20for%0A%3E%20libstdc%2B%2B%20which%20is%20not%20used%20in%20debian-installer.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%202.%20There%20is%20no%20finished%20discussion%20whether%20embedded%20people%20really%20want%0A%3E%20udebs%2C%20and%20the%20technicall%20committee%20is%20not%20the%20right%20place%20for%20detailed%0A%3E%20design%20work%20%28Constitution%206.3.5%29.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%203.%20The%20technical%20committee%20makes%20decisions%20only%20as%20last%20resort%0A%3E%20%28Consitution%206.3.6%29.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%204.%20The%20only%20existing%20udeb%20section%20is%20intended%20for%20the%20installer%3B%20the%0A%3E%20ftp-masters%20were%20not%20even%20asked%20to%20add%20a%20new%20section.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20THE%20COMMITTEE%20CONCLUDES%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%201.%20As%20the%20udeb%20is%20not%20intended%20for%20inclusion%20into%20debian-installer%2C%20we%0A%3E%20agree%20with%20the%20maintainer%27s%20decision%20to%20not%20add%20an%20udeb%20in%20that%20section.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%202.%20As%20the%20maintainers%20were%20not%20asked%20for%20adding%20another%20udeb%20section%2C%20we%0A%3E%20don%27t%20make%20any%20decision%20about%20this.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%203.%20We%20encourage%20the%20embedded%20people%20to%20continue%20there%20discussion%20about%0A%3E%20the%20optimal%20format%20is%20for%20them%2C%20and%20to%20set%20up%20experimental%20environments%0A%3E%20for%20their%20first%20tests%20by%20themself.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Cheers%2C%0A%3E%20Andi%0A%3E%20--%20%0A%3E%20%20%20http%3A%2F%2Fhome.arcor.de%2Fandreas-barth%2F%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=aba%40not.so.argh.org" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:45:55 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">Hi, * Sven Luther (sven.luther@wanadoo.fr) [060517 12:56]: > That said, with the advent of g-i, there are other usages of .udeb packages, > and the g-i infrastructure itself leaves the door open to a wide variety of > innovative and interesting applications, not necessarily around the core d-i > technologies. Actually, what we miss here is that the actual maintainers opposed this proposal. AFAIK Sven has asked it as part of the d-i section, and of course, if it is not used by the installer, there is no reason to provide it inside of the d-i udeb section (btw the only one we currently have). What we need if it should be used outside of d-i: - A clear consensus of the embedded people or so to use udebs (AFAIK there is no consensus about that right now, and even not discussed out right now). - Asking the relevant maintainers (that is *not* the d-i team) to - add other udeb section(s), by the ftp-masters - asking the maintainer to add non-d-i-udebs So, I propose the following conclusions from us: WHEREAS 1. Sven Luther asks us to enforce the maintainer to add an udeb for libstdc++ which is not used in debian-installer. 2. There is no finished discussion whether embedded people really want udebs, and the technicall committee is not the right place for detailed design work (Constitution 6.3.5). 3. The technical committee makes decisions only as last resort (Consitution 6.3.6). 4. The only existing udeb section is intended for the installer; the ftp-masters were not even asked to add a new section. THE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES 1. As the udeb is not intended for inclusion into debian-installer, we agree with the maintainer's decision to not add an udeb in that section. 2. As the maintainers were not asked for adding another udeb section, we don't make any decision about this. 3. We encourage the embedded people to continue there discussion about the optimal format is for them, and to set up experimental environments for their first tests by themself. Cheers, Andi -- <a href="http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/">http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/</a> </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="21"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=22">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=22">mbox</a>, <a href="#21">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="23"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=24">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=24">mbox</a>, <a href="#23">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="25"></a><a name="msg25"></a><a href="#25">Message #25</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=25">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=25">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20in%20order%20to%20produce%20c%2B%2B%20based%20images%20based%20on%20d-i%20technology%20%28but%20not%20d-i%29.&References=%3C20060517195151.GA7228%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3C20060604164555.GA7060%40mails.so.argh.org%3E%0A%20%3C20060604212522.GO10352%40mauritius.dodds.net%3E&In-Reply-To=%3C20060604212522.GO10352%40mauritius.dodds.net%3E&body=On%20Sun%2C%204%20Jun%202006%2014%3A25%3A22%20-0700%20Steve%20Langasek%20%3Cvorlon%40debian.org%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20On%20Sun%2C%20Jun%2004%2C%202006%20at%2006%3A45%3A55PM%20%2B0200%2C%20Andreas%20Barth%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20So%2C%20I%20propose%20the%20following%20conclusions%20from%20us%3A%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Hmm%2C%20in%20Mexico%20we%20discussed%20that%20this%20bug%20was%20out%20of%20order%20for%20the%20TC%20to%0A%3E%20consider.%20%20Why%20do%20we%20not%20just%20punt%20the%20bug%20over%20to%20the%20responsibles%3F%20%0A%3E%20%28ftp.debian.org%3F%20%20libstdc%2B%2B%3F%29%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20--%20%0A%3E%20Steve%20Langasek%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Give%20me%20a%20lever%20long%20enough%20and%20a%20Free%20OS%0A%3E%20Debian%20Developer%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20to%20set%20it%20on%2C%20and%20I%20can%20move%20the%20world.%0A%3E%20vorlon%40debian.org%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debian.org%2F%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=vorlon%40debian.org" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Sun, 4 Jun 2006 14:25:22 -0700</div> </div> <pre class="message">On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:45:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > So, I propose the following conclusions from us: Hmm, in Mexico we discussed that this bug was out of order for the TC to consider. Why do we not just punt the bug over to the responsibles? (ftp.debian.org? libstdc++?) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org <a href="http://www.debian.org/">http://www.debian.org/</a> </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="26"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=27">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=27">mbox</a>, <a href="#26">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="28"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=29">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=29">mbox</a>, <a href="#28">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="30"></a><a name="msg30"></a><a href="#30">Message #30</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=30">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=30">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?References=%3C20060517195151.GA7228%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3C20060604164555.GA7060%40mails.so.argh.org%3E%20%3C20060604212522.GO10352%40mauritius.dodds.net%3E%0A%20%3C20060605084221.GL26879%40mails.so.argh.org%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20in%20order%20to%20produce%20c%2B%2B%20based%20images%20based%20on%20d-i%20technology%20%28but%20not%20d-i%29.&In-Reply-To=%3C20060605084221.GL26879%40mails.so.argh.org%3E&body=On%20Mon%2C%205%20Jun%202006%2010%3A42%3A21%20%2B0200%20Andreas%20Barth%20%3Caba%40not.so.argh.org%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%2A%20Steve%20Langasek%20%28vorlon%40debian.org%29%20%5B060604%2023%3A24%5D%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20On%20Sun%2C%20Jun%2004%2C%202006%20at%2006%3A45%3A55PM%20%2B0200%2C%20Andreas%20Barth%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20So%2C%20I%20propose%20the%20following%20conclusions%20from%20us%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Hmm%2C%20in%20Mexico%20we%20discussed%20that%20this%20bug%20was%20out%20of%20order%20for%20the%20TC%20to%0A%3E%20%3E%20consider.%20%20Why%20do%20we%20not%20just%20punt%20the%20bug%20over%20to%20the%20responsibles%3F%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20%28ftp.debian.org%3F%20%20libstdc%2B%2B%3F%29%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20because%20we%20thaught%20the%20maintainers%20didn%27t%20decide%20yet.%20We%20learned%20on%0A%3E%20Sunday%20however%20that%20the%20maintainers%20did%20decide%20about%20a%20udeb%20in%20the%20d-i%0A%3E%20section%20-%20and%20the%20answer%20was%20no%20%28for%20obvious%20reasons%29.%20So%2C%20there%20is%0A%3E%20really%20something%20why%20we%20could%20decide%20-%20whether%20to%20override%20this%0A%3E%20maintainers%20decision%20or%20rather%20not.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20And%2C%20whom%20to%20put%20the%20bug%20to%3F%20I%20doubt%20ftp.d.o%20will%20do%20anything%20for%20this%0A%3E%20bug%20report%20in%20the%20current%20state%20of%20the%20discussion%2C%20and%20I%20really%20prefer%0A%3E%20to%20deal%20with%20it%2C%20instead%20of%20letting%20it%20bitrott%20somewhere.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Cheers%2C%0A%3E%20Andi%0A%3E%20--%20%0A%3E%20%20%20http%3A%2F%2Fhome.arcor.de%2Fandreas-barth%2F%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=aba%40not.so.argh.org" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Cc:</span> 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Mon, 5 Jun 2006 10:42:21 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">* Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) [060604 23:24]: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:45:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > So, I propose the following conclusions from us: > > Hmm, in Mexico we discussed that this bug was out of order for the TC to > consider. Why do we not just punt the bug over to the responsibles? > (ftp.debian.org? libstdc++?) because we thaught the maintainers didn't decide yet. We learned on Sunday however that the maintainers did decide about a udeb in the d-i section - and the answer was no (for obvious reasons). So, there is really something why we could decide - whether to override this maintainers decision or rather not. And, whom to put the bug to? I doubt ftp.d.o will do anything for this bug report in the current state of the discussion, and I really prefer to deal with it, instead of letting it bitrott somewhere. Cheers, Andi -- <a href="http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/">http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/</a> </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="31"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=32">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=32">mbox</a>, <a href="#31">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="33"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=34">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=34">mbox</a>, <a href="#33">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="35"></a><a name="msg35"></a><a href="#35">Message #35</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=35">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=35">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?In-Reply-To=%3C20060605181521.GK8620%40mauritius.dodds.net%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20in%20order%20to%20produce%20c%2B%2B%20based%20images%20based%20on%20d-i%20technology%20%28but%20not%20d-i%29.&References=%3C20060517195151.GA7228%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3C20060604164555.GA7060%40mails.so.argh.org%3E%20%3C20060604212522.GO10352%40mauritius.dodds.net%3E%20%3C20060605084221.GL26879%40mails.so.argh.org%3E%0A%20%3C20060605181521.GK8620%40mauritius.dodds.net%3E&body=On%20Mon%2C%205%20Jun%202006%2011%3A15%3A21%20-0700%20Steve%20Langasek%20%3Cvorlon%40debian.org%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20On%20Mon%2C%20Jun%2005%2C%202006%20at%2010%3A42%3A21AM%20%2B0200%2C%20Andreas%20Barth%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%2A%20Steve%20Langasek%20%28vorlon%40debian.org%29%20%5B060604%2023%3A24%5D%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20On%20Sun%2C%20Jun%2004%2C%202006%20at%2006%3A45%3A55PM%20%2B0200%2C%20Andreas%20Barth%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20So%2C%20I%20propose%20the%20following%20conclusions%20from%20us%3A%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20Hmm%2C%20in%20Mexico%20we%20discussed%20that%20this%20bug%20was%20out%20of%20order%20for%20the%20TC%20to%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20consider.%20%20Why%20do%20we%20not%20just%20punt%20the%20bug%20over%20to%20the%20responsibles%3F%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%28ftp.debian.org%3F%20%20libstdc%2B%2B%3F%29%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20because%20we%20thaught%20the%20maintainers%20didn%27t%20decide%20yet.%20We%20learned%20on%0A%3E%20%3E%20Sunday%20however%20that%20the%20maintainers%20did%20decide%20about%20a%20udeb%20in%20the%20d-i%0A%3E%20%3E%20section%20-%20and%20the%20answer%20was%20no%20%28for%20obvious%20reasons%29.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Hmm%2C%20who%27s%20%22we%22%3F%20%20And%20I%20guess%20you%20mean%20that%20the%20d-i%20maintainers%20decided%20they%0A%3E%20didn%27t%20want%20this%2C%20not%20that%20the%20gcc%20maintainer%20decided%20it%20would%20not%20be%0A%3E%20provided%3F%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20--%20%0A%3E%20Steve%20Langasek%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Give%20me%20a%20lever%20long%20enough%20and%20a%20Free%20OS%0A%3E%20Debian%20Developer%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20to%20set%20it%20on%2C%20and%20I%20can%20move%20the%20world.%0A%3E%20vorlon%40debian.org%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debian.org%2F%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=vorlon%40debian.org" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:15:21 -0700</div> </div> <pre class="mime">[<a href="bugreport.cgi?att=0;bug=367709;msg=35">Message part 1</a> (text/plain, inline)]</pre> <pre class="message">On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:42:21AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) [060604 23:24]: > > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:45:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > So, I propose the following conclusions from us: > > Hmm, in Mexico we discussed that this bug was out of order for the TC to > > consider. Why do we not just punt the bug over to the responsibles? > > (ftp.debian.org? libstdc++?) > because we thaught the maintainers didn't decide yet. We learned on > Sunday however that the maintainers did decide about a udeb in the d-i > section - and the answer was no (for obvious reasons). Hmm, who's "we"? And I guess you mean that the d-i maintainers decided they didn't want this, not that the gcc maintainer decided it would not be provided? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org <a href="http://www.debian.org/">http://www.debian.org/</a> </pre> <pre class="mime">[<a href="bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=367709;filename=signature.asc;msg=35">signature.asc</a> (application/pgp-signature, inline)]</pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="36"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=37">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=37">mbox</a>, <a href="#36">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="38"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=39">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=39">mbox</a>, <a href="#38">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="40"></a><a name="msg40"></a><a href="#40">Message #40</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=40">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=40">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?body=On%20Mon%2C%205%20Jun%202006%2020%3A21%3A24%20%2B0200%20Andreas%20Barth%20%3Caba%40not.so.argh.org%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%2A%20Steve%20Langasek%20%28vorlon%40debian.org%29%20%5B060605%2020%3A14%5D%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20On%20Mon%2C%20Jun%2005%2C%202006%20at%2010%3A42%3A21AM%20%2B0200%2C%20Andreas%20Barth%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%2A%20Steve%20Langasek%20%28vorlon%40debian.org%29%20%5B060604%2023%3A24%5D%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20On%20Sun%2C%20Jun%2004%2C%202006%20at%2006%3A45%3A55PM%20%2B0200%2C%20Andreas%20Barth%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20So%2C%20I%20propose%20the%20following%20conclusions%20from%20us%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20Hmm%2C%20in%20Mexico%20we%20discussed%20that%20this%20bug%20was%20out%20of%20order%20for%20the%20TC%20to%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20consider.%20%20Why%20do%20we%20not%20just%20punt%20the%20bug%20over%20to%20the%20responsibles%3F%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%28ftp.debian.org%3F%20%20libstdc%2B%2B%3F%29%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20because%20we%20thaught%20the%20maintainers%20didn%27t%20decide%20yet.%20We%20learned%20on%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20Sunday%20however%20that%20the%20maintainers%20did%20decide%20about%20a%20udeb%20in%20the%20d-i%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20section%20-%20and%20the%20answer%20was%20no%20%28for%20obvious%20reasons%29.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Hmm%2C%20who%27s%20%22we%22%3F%20%20And%20I%20guess%20you%20mean%20that%20the%20d-i%20maintainers%20decided%20they%0A%3E%20%3E%20didn%27t%20want%20this%2C%20not%20that%20the%20gcc%20maintainer%20decided%20it%20would%20not%20be%0A%3E%20%3E%20provided%3F%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%22we%22%20%3D%20%22the%20people%20at%20the%20Indian%20cooking%22%0A%3E%20the%20gcc%20maintainers%20decided%20that%20they%20will%20add%20it%20only%20when%20the%20d-i%0A%3E%20maintainers%20need%20it%2C%20and%20the%20d-i%20maintainer%20decided%20to%20not%20need%20it.%0A%3E%20Actually%2C%20even%20Sven%20doesn%27t%20want%20it%20for%20d-i%2C%20so%20he%20asks%20us%20to%20overwrite%0A%3E%20the%20decision%20of%20the%20gcc%20maintainers.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Cheers%2C%0A%3E%20Andi%0A%3E%20--%20%0A%3E%20%20%20http%3A%2F%2Fhome.arcor.de%2Fandreas-barth%2F%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20in%20order%20to%20produce%20c%2B%2B%20based%20images%20based%20on%20d-i%20technology%20%28but%20not%20d-i%29.&References=%3C20060517195151.GA7228%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3C20060604164555.GA7060%40mails.so.argh.org%3E%20%3C20060604212522.GO10352%40mauritius.dodds.net%3E%20%3C20060605084221.GL26879%40mails.so.argh.org%3E%20%3C20060605181521.GK8620%40mauritius.dodds.net%3E%0A%20%3C20060605182124.GZ26879%40mails.so.argh.org%3E&In-Reply-To=%3C20060605182124.GZ26879%40mails.so.argh.org%3E">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=aba%40not.so.argh.org" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Cc:</span> 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Mon, 5 Jun 2006 20:21:24 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">* Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) [060605 20:14]: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:42:21AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) [060604 23:24]: > > > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:45:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > So, I propose the following conclusions from us: > > > > Hmm, in Mexico we discussed that this bug was out of order for the TC to > > > consider. Why do we not just punt the bug over to the responsibles? > > > (ftp.debian.org? libstdc++?) > > > because we thaught the maintainers didn't decide yet. We learned on > > Sunday however that the maintainers did decide about a udeb in the d-i > > section - and the answer was no (for obvious reasons). > Hmm, who's "we"? And I guess you mean that the d-i maintainers decided they > didn't want this, not that the gcc maintainer decided it would not be > provided? "we" = "the people at the Indian cooking" the gcc maintainers decided that they will add it only when the d-i maintainers need it, and the d-i maintainer decided to not need it. Actually, even Sven doesn't want it for d-i, so he asks us to overwrite the decision of the gcc maintainers. Cheers, Andi -- <a href="http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/">http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/</a> </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="41"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=42">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=42">mbox</a>, <a href="#41">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="43"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=44">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=44">mbox</a>, <a href="#43">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="45"></a><a name="msg45"></a><a href="#45">Message #45</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=45">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=45">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?body=On%20Mon%2C%205%20Jun%202006%2021%3A29%3A48%20%2B0200%20Andreas%20Barth%20%3Caba%40not.so.argh.org%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20reassign%20367709%20gcc-4.0%2Ctech-ctte%0A%3E%20thanks%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%2A%20Andreas%20Barth%20%28aba%40not.so.argh.org%29%20%5B060605%2020%3A43%5D%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20the%20gcc%20maintainers%20decided%20that%20they%20will%20add%20it%20only%20when%20the%20d-i%0A%3E%20%3E%20maintainers%20need%20it%2C%20and%20the%20d-i%20maintainer%20decided%20to%20not%20need%20it.%0A%3E%20%3E%20Actually%2C%20even%20Sven%20doesn%27t%20want%20it%20for%20d-i%2C%20so%20he%20asks%20us%20to%20overwrite%0A%3E%20%3E%20the%20decision%20of%20the%20gcc%20maintainers.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20After%20some%20more%20discussion%20on%20IRC%2C%20we%20noticed%20that%20there%20are%20different%0A%3E%20interpretations%20of%20what%20the%20gcc%20maintainers%20supposed%20to%20have%20said.%20For%0A%3E%20this%20reason%2C%20I%27m%20re-assigning%20this%20bug%20report%20to%20also%20gcc-4.0.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Matthias%2C%20is%20there%20any%20decision%20from%20you%20whether%20to%20add%20an%20libstdc%2B%2B%0A%3E%20udeb%20or%20not%2C%20and%20if%20so%2C%20which%3F%20Please%20reassign%20this%20bug%20report%20back%20to%0A%3E%20the%20tech%20ctte%20until%20there%20happens%20to%20be%20a%20decision%20everyone%20is%20happy%0A%3E%20with.%20Sorry%20for%20troubling%20you%2C%20and%20thanks%20for%20your%20help.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Cheers%2C%0A%3E%20Andi%0A%3E%20--%20%0A%3E%20%20%20http%3A%2F%2Fhome.arcor.de%2Fandreas-barth%2F%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A&References=%3C20060517195151.GA7228%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3C20060604164555.GA7060%40mails.so.argh.org%3E%20%3C20060604212522.GO10352%40mauritius.dodds.net%3E%20%3C20060605084221.GL26879%40mails.so.argh.org%3E%20%3C20060605181521.GK8620%40mauritius.dodds.net%3E%20%3C20060605182124.GZ26879%40mails.so.argh.org%3E%0A%20%3C20060605192948.GB26879%40mails.so.argh.org%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20in%20order%20to%20produce%20c%2B%2B%20based%20images%20based%20on%20d-i%20technology%20%28but%20not%20d-i%29.&In-Reply-To=%3C20060605192948.GB26879%40mails.so.argh.org%3E">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=aba%40not.so.argh.org" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Cc:</span> 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Mon, 5 Jun 2006 21:29:48 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">reassign 367709 gcc-4.0,tech-ctte thanks * Andreas Barth (aba@not.so.argh.org) [060605 20:43]: > the gcc maintainers decided that they will add it only when the d-i > maintainers need it, and the d-i maintainer decided to not need it. > Actually, even Sven doesn't want it for d-i, so he asks us to overwrite > the decision of the gcc maintainers. After some more discussion on IRC, we noticed that there are different interpretations of what the gcc maintainers supposed to have said. For this reason, I'm re-assigning this bug report to also gcc-4.0. Matthias, is there any decision from you whether to add an libstdc++ udeb or not, and if so, which? Please reassign this bug report back to the tech ctte until there happens to be a decision everyone is happy with. Sorry for troubling you, and thanks for your help. Cheers, Andi -- <a href="http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/">http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/</a> </pre> <div class="msgreceived"><hr><p> <a name="46"></a> <strong>Bug reassigned from package `<a href="pkgreport.cgi?package=tech-ctte">tech-ctte</a>' to `<a href="pkgreport.cgi?package=gcc-4.0%2Ctech-ctte">gcc-4.0,tech-ctte</a>'.</strong> Request was from <code>Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org></code> to <code>control@bugs.debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=47">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=47">mbox</a>, <a href="#46">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="48"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian GCC Maintainers <debian-gcc@lists.debian.org>, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>gcc-4.0,tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=49">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=49">mbox</a>, <a href="#48">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="50"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Debian GCC Maintainers <debian-gcc@lists.debian.org>, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org></code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=51">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=51">mbox</a>, <a href="#50">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="52"></a><a name="msg52"></a><a href="#52">Message #52</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=52">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=52">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?In-Reply-To=%3C17583.61404.349261.465399%40gargle.gargle.HOWL%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20in%20order%20to%20produce%20c%2B%2B%20based%20images%20based%20on%20d-i%20technology%20%28but%20not%20d-i%29.&References=%3C17583.61404.349261.465399%40gargle.gargle.HOWL%3E&body=On%20Sat%2C%208%20Jul%202006%2019%3A48%3A12%20%2B0200%20Matthias%20Klose%20%3Cdoko%40cs.tu-berlin.de%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20reassign%20367709%20tech-ctte%0A%3E%20thanks%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20After%20some%20more%20discussion%20on%20IRC%2C%20we%20noticed%20that%20there%20are%20different%0A%3E%20%3E%20interpretations%20of%20what%20the%20gcc%20maintainers%20supposed%20to%20have%20said.%20For%0A%3E%20%3E%20this%20reason%2C%20I%27m%20re-assigning%20this%20bug%20report%20to%20also%20gcc-4.0.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Matthias%2C%20is%20there%20any%20decision%20from%20you%20whether%20to%20add%20an%20libstdc%2B%2B%0A%3E%20%3E%20udeb%20or%20not%2C%20and%20if%20so%2C%20which%3F%20Please%20reassign%20this%20bug%20report%20back%20to%0A%3E%20%3E%20the%20tech%20ctte%20until%20there%20happens%20to%20be%20a%20decision%20everyone%20is%20happy%0A%3E%20%3E%20with.%20Sorry%20for%20troubling%20you%2C%20and%20thanks%20for%20your%20help.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20I%20would%20like%20to%20avoid%20building%20libgcc1%2C%20libgcc2%2C%20libgcc4%2C%20libstdc%2B%2B6%0A%3E%20packages%20if%20possible.%20An%20alternative%20possibility%20to%20build%20these%20could%0A%3E%20be%20a%20separate%20source%20package%20b-d%20on%20gcc-4.1-source%2C%20as%20currently%20done%0A%3E%20by%20gcj-4.1%20and%20several%20cross%20compiler%20setups.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%20Matthias%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=doko%40cs.tu-berlin.de" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Cc:</span> control@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Sat, 8 Jul 2006 19:48:12 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">reassign 367709 tech-ctte thanks > After some more discussion on IRC, we noticed that there are different > interpretations of what the gcc maintainers supposed to have said. For > this reason, I'm re-assigning this bug report to also gcc-4.0. > > Matthias, is there any decision from you whether to add an libstdc++ > udeb or not, and if so, which? Please reassign this bug report back to > the tech ctte until there happens to be a decision everyone is happy > with. Sorry for troubling you, and thanks for your help. I would like to avoid building libgcc1, libgcc2, libgcc4, libstdc++6 packages if possible. An alternative possibility to build these could be a separate source package b-d on gcc-4.1-source, as currently done by gcj-4.1 and several cross compiler setups. Matthias </pre> <div class="msgreceived"><hr><p> <a name="53"></a> <strong>Bug reassigned from package `<a href="pkgreport.cgi?package=gcc-4.0%2Ctech-ctte">gcc-4.0,tech-ctte</a>' to `<a href="pkgreport.cgi?package=tech-ctte">tech-ctte</a>'.</strong> Request was from <code>Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de></code> to <code>control@bugs.debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=54">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=54">mbox</a>, <a href="#53">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="msgreceived"><hr><p> <a name="55"></a> <strong>Owner recorded as ajt@debian.org.</strong> Request was from <code>Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com></code> to <code>control@bugs.debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=56">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=56">mbox</a>, <a href="#55">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="msgreceived"><hr><p> <a name="57"></a> <strong>Reply sent</strong> to <code>bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee)</code>:<br> You have taken responsibility. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=58">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=58">mbox</a>, <a href="#57">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="59"></a> <strong>Notification sent</strong> to <code>Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr></code>:<br> Bug acknowledged by developer. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=60">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=60">mbox</a>, <a href="#59">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="61"></a><a name="msg61"></a><a href="#61">Message #61</a> received at 367709-done@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=61">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=61">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?body=On%20Thu%2C%2014%20Jun%202007%2000%3A06%3A02%20-0400%20%28EDT%29%20bdale%40gag.com%20%28Bdale%20Garbee%29%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20Neither%20of%20these%20two%20Tech%20Committee%20requests%20remain%20relevant.%20%20I%20am%20therefore%20%0A%3E%20closing%20these%20bugs%20with%20no%20further%20action%20taken.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Bdale%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A&References=%3C20070614040602.2DBC415E13D%40rover.gag.com%3E&subject=Re%3A%20no%20longer%20relevant&In-Reply-To=%3C20070614040602.2DBC415E13D%40rover.gag.com%3E">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=bdale%40gag.com" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee)</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> 366938-done@bugs.debian.org, 367709-done@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> no longer relevant</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:06:02 -0400 (EDT)</div> </div> <pre class="message">Neither of these two Tech Committee requests remain relevant. I am therefore closing these bugs with no further action taken. Bdale </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="62"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=63">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=63">mbox</a>, <a href="#62">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="64"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=65">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=65">mbox</a>, <a href="#64">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="66"></a><a name="msg66"></a><a href="#66">Message #66</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=66">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=66">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?In-Reply-To=%3C20070614082913.GA21885%40powerlinux.fr%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%20closed%20by%20bdale%40gag.com%20%28Bdale%20Garbee%29%20%28no%20longer%20relevant%29&References=%3C20070614040602.2DBC415E13D%40rover.gag.com%3E%20%3C20060517195151.GA7228%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3Chandler.367709.D367709.11817939644674.notifdone%40bugs.debian.org%3E%0A%20%3C20070614082913.GA21885%40powerlinux.fr%3E&body=On%20Thu%2C%2014%20Jun%202007%2010%3A29%3A13%20%2B0200%20Sven%20Luther%20%3Csven%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20reopen%20367709%0A%3E%20thanks%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20This%20request%20stays%20relevant%2C%20since%20it%20was%20not%20directly%20linked%20to%20myself.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20It%20is%20not%20because%20i%20requested%20it%2C%20that%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20is%20not%20useful%2C%0A%3E%20since%20other%20may%20be%20interested%20by%20a%20partimage%20enabled%20d-i%20for%20recovery%0A%3E%20purpose.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Friendly%2C%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Sven%20Luther%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20On%20Thu%2C%20Jun%2014%2C%202007%20at%2004%3A09%3A05AM%20%2B0000%2C%20Debian%20Bug%20Tracking%20System%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20This%20is%20an%20automatic%20notification%20regarding%20your%20Bug%20report%0A%3E%20%3E%20%23367709%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20in%20order%20to%20produce%20c%2B%2B%20based%20images%20based%20on%20d-i%20technology%20%28but%20not%20d-i%29.%2C%0A%3E%20%3E%20which%20was%20filed%20against%20the%20tech-ctte%20package.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20It%20has%20been%20closed%20by%20bdale%40gag.com%20%28Bdale%20Garbee%29.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Their%20explanation%20is%20attached%20below.%20%20If%20this%20explanation%20is%0A%3E%20%3E%20unsatisfactory%20and%20you%20have%20not%20received%20a%20better%20one%20in%20a%20separate%0A%3E%20%3E%20message%20then%20please%20contact%20bdale%40gag.com%20%28Bdale%20Garbee%29%20by%20replying%0A%3E%20%3E%20to%20this%20email.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Debian%20bug%20tracking%20system%20administrator%0A%3E%20%3E%20%28administrator%2C%20Debian%20Bugs%20database%29%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%0A%3E%20%3E%20Orange%20vous%20informe%20que%20cet%20%20e-mail%20a%20ete%20controle%20par%20l%27anti-virus%20mail.%0A%3E%20%3E%20Aucun%20virus%20connu%20a%20ce%20jour%20par%20nos%20services%20n%27a%20ete%20detecte.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20To%3A%20366938-done%40bugs.debian.org%2C%20367709-done%40bugs.debian.org%0A%3E%20%3E%20Subject%3A%20no%20longer%20relevant%0A%3E%20%3E%20Message-Id%3A%20%3C20070614040602.2DBC415E13D%40rover.gag.com%3E%0A%3E%20%3E%20Date%3A%20Thu%2C%2014%20Jun%202007%2000%3A06%3A02%20-0400%20%28EDT%29%0A%3E%20%3E%20From%3A%20Bdale%20Garbee%20%3Cbdale%40gag.com%3E%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Neither%20of%20these%20two%20Tech%20Committee%20requests%20remain%20relevant.%20%20I%20am%20therefore%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20closing%20these%20bugs%20with%20no%20further%20action%20taken.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Bdale%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=sven%40powerlinux.fr" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Cc:</span> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709 closed by bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee) (no longer relevant)</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:29:13 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">reopen 367709 thanks This request stays relevant, since it was not directly linked to myself. It is not because i requested it, that a libstdc++ .udeb is not useful, since other may be interested by a partimage enabled d-i for recovery purpose. Friendly, Sven Luther On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:09:05AM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > #367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i)., > which was filed against the tech-ctte package. > > It has been closed by bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee). > > Their explanation is attached below. If this explanation is > unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate > message then please contact bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee) by replying > to this email. > > Debian bug tracking system administrator > (administrator, Debian Bugs database) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. > Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte. > > To: 366938-done@bugs.debian.org, 367709-done@bugs.debian.org > Subject: no longer relevant > Message-Id: <20070614040602.2DBC415E13D@rover.gag.com> > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:06:02 -0400 (EDT) > From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> > > Neither of these two Tech Committee requests remain relevant. I am therefore > closing these bugs with no further action taken. > > Bdale </pre> <div class="msgreceived"><hr><p> <a name="67"></a>  <strong>Bug reopened, originator not changed.</strong> Request was from <code>Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></code> to <code>control@bugs.debian.org</code>. (Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:28:26 GMT) (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=68">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=68">mbox</a>, <a href="#67">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="69"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=70">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=70">mbox</a>, <a href="#69">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="71"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=72">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=72">mbox</a>, <a href="#71">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="73"></a><a name="msg73"></a><a href="#73">Message #73</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=73">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=73">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%20reopened&References=%3C20070614082913.GA21885%40powerlinux.fr%3E%0A%09%3Clist.debian.ctte%25handler.s.C.11818097843597.transcript%40bugs.debian.org%3E%0A%20%3C87ejkevjhj.fsf_-_%40rover.gag.com%3E&In-Reply-To=%3C87ejkevjhj.fsf_-_%40rover.gag.com%3E&body=On%20Thu%2C%2014%20Jun%202007%2007%3A55%3A04%20-0400%20Bdale%20Garbee%20%3Cbdale%40gag.com%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20owner%40bugs.debian.org%20%28Debian%20Bug%20Tracking%20System%29%20writes%3A%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%3E%20reopen%20367709%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Sven%27s%20argument%20in%20favor%20of%20reopening%20this%20bug%20is%20not%20immediately%20persuasive%0A%3E%20to%20me%2C%20both%20because%20I%20don%27t%20recall%20seeing%20any%20other%20support%20for%20this%20request%0A%3E%20since%20he%20made%20it%20in%20May%20of%202006%2C%20and%20because%20the%20concensus%20of%20prior%20response%20%0A%3E%20captured%20in%20the%20bug%20log%20from%20Committee%20members%20seems%20to%20be%20that%20this%20request%20%0A%3E%20is%20out%20of%20order%20for%20us%20to%20consider.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Committee%20members%2C%20am%20I%20missing%20something%3F%20%20Some%20discussion%20may%20be%20in%20order%0A%3E%20at%20least%20to%20help%20me%20understand%20whether%20you%20now%20believe%20this%20is%20an%20issue%20we%0A%3E%20should%20vote%20on%3F%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Bdale%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=bdale%40gag.com" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> debian-ctte@lists.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Cc:</span> 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Bug#367709 reopened</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:55:04 -0400</div> </div> <pre class="message">owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System) writes: >> reopen 367709 Sven's argument in favor of reopening this bug is not immediately persuasive to me, both because I don't recall seeing any other support for this request since he made it in May of 2006, and because the concensus of prior response captured in the bug log from Committee members seems to be that this request is out of order for us to consider. Committee members, am I missing something? Some discussion may be in order at least to help me understand whether you now believe this is an issue we should vote on? Bdale </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="74"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=75">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=75">mbox</a>, <a href="#74">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="76"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=77">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=77">mbox</a>, <a href="#76">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="78"></a><a name="msg78"></a><a href="#78">Message #78</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=78">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=78">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?References=%3C20070614082913.GA21885%40powerlinux.fr%3E%0A%09%3Clist.debian.ctte%25handler.s.C.11818097843597.transcript%40bugs.debian.org%3E%0A%09%3C87ejkevjhj.fsf_-_%40rover.gag.com%3E%0A%20%3C18033.21580.735406.717955%40davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%20reopened&In-Reply-To=%3C18033.21580.735406.717955%40davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk%3E&body=On%20Thu%2C%2014%20Jun%202007%2015%3A44%3A28%20%2B0100%20Ian%20Jackson%20%3Cian%40davenant.greenend.org.uk%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20Bdale%20Garbee%20writes%20%28%22Bug%23367709%20reopened%22%29%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20owner%40bugs.debian.org%20%28Debian%20Bug%20Tracking%20System%29%20writes%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20reopen%20367709%0A%3E%20...%0A%3E%20%3E%20Committee%20members%2C%20am%20I%20missing%20something%3F%20%20Some%20discussion%20may%20be%20in%20order%0A%3E%20%3E%20at%20least%20to%20help%20me%20understand%20whether%20you%20now%20believe%20this%20is%20an%20issue%20we%0A%3E%20%3E%20should%20vote%20on%3F%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20I%20hereby%20propose%20as%20follows%3A%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20The%20Committee%20is%20of%20the%20opinion%20that%3A%0A%3E%20%201.%20It%20is%20not%20appropriate%20for%20the%20TC%20to%20rule%20on%20this%20matter%3B%20and%2For%0A%3E%20%202.%20We%20agree%20with%20the%20existing%20maintainers%27%20decision.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20And%2C%20the%20Committee%20feels%20that%3A%0A%3E%20%203.%20We%20feel%20that%20the%20complainant%20%28Sven%20Luther%29%20is%20not%20the%20right%0A%3E%20%20%20%20%20person%20to%20negotiate%20with%20the%20other%20maintainers%20in%20this%20area.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20For%20these%20reason%28s%29%2C%20we%20conclude%3A%0A%3E%20%204.%20This%20bug%20report%20should%20be%20closed.%0A%3E%20%205.%20Should%20someone%20other%20than%20Sven%20Luther%20have%20a%20similar%20request%0A%3E%20%20%20%20%20we%20encourage%20them%20to%20do%20the%20appropriate%20design%20work%20and%20discuss%0A%3E%20%20%20%20%20the%20matter%20with%20the%20other%20affected%20maintainers.%0A%3E%20%206.%20If%20such%20a%20person%20wishes%20to%20appeal%20a%20technical%20disagreement%20to%0A%3E%20%20%20%20%20the%20Technical%20Committee%20we%20encourage%20them%20to%20do%20so.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20I%20vote%20in%20favour.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Ian.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=ian%40davenant.greenend.org.uk" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709 reopened</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:44:28 +0100</div> </div> <pre class="message">Bdale Garbee writes ("Bug#367709 reopened"): > owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System) writes: > > reopen 367709 ... > Committee members, am I missing something? Some discussion may be in order > at least to help me understand whether you now believe this is an issue we > should vote on? I hereby propose as follows: The Committee is of the opinion that: 1. It is not appropriate for the TC to rule on this matter; and/or 2. We agree with the existing maintainers' decision. And, the Committee feels that: 3. We feel that the complainant (Sven Luther) is not the right person to negotiate with the other maintainers in this area. For these reason(s), we conclude: 4. This bug report should be closed. 5. Should someone other than Sven Luther have a similar request we encourage them to do the appropriate design work and discuss the matter with the other affected maintainers. 6. If such a person wishes to appeal a technical disagreement to the Technical Committee we encourage them to do so. I vote in favour. Ian. </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="79"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=80">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=80">mbox</a>, <a href="#79">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="81"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=82">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=82">mbox</a>, <a href="#81">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="83"></a><a name="msg83"></a><a href="#83">Message #83</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=83">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=83">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?body=On%20Fri%2C%2022%20Jun%202007%2000%3A09%3A46%20%2B0100%20Bdale%20Garbee%20%3Cbdale%40gag.com%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20I%20hereby%20call%20for%20an%20immediate%20TC%20vote%20on%20the%20question%20of%20whether%20a%0A%3E%20libstdc%2B%2B%20udeb%20should%20be%20created%20to%20support%20the%20use%20of%20C%2B%2B%20in%20the%20%0A%3E%20debian-installer%20environment%2C%20as%20requested%20by%20bug%20%23367709.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20The%20udeb%20structure%20was%20invented%20for%20debian-installer%2C%20and%20to%20date%20%0A%3E%20Debian%20has%20not%20supported%20the%20use%20of%20udebs%20for%20any%20other%20purpose.%0A%3E%20In%20the%20discussion%20on%20this%20issue%20recorded%20in%20the%20bug%20log%20and%20on%20our%20%0A%3E%20list%2C%20it%20seems%20clear%20that%20the%20d-i%20team%20does%20not%20want%20C%2B%2B%20support%20in%20%0A%3E%20the%20installer%20environment%2C%20and%20the%20gcc%20maintainer%20is%20reluctant%20to%20%0A%3E%20build%20and%20support%20udebs%20that%20the%20installer%20team%20doesn%27t%20need.%20%20The%20%0A%3E%20question%20before%20us%20is%20therefore%20whether%20to%20support%20or%20overrule%20the%20%0A%3E%20developer%20responsible%20for%20our%20gcc%20packaging%2C%20and%20the%20developers%20%0A%3E%20involved%20in%20the%20debian-installer%20project.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Since%20this%20vote%20may%20overrule%20a%20developer%2C%206.1.3%20of%20our%20Constitution%20%0A%3E%20requires%20a%203%3A1%20majority%20of%20the%20TC%20for%20choice%201.%20%20However%2C%20a%20simple%20%0A%3E%20majority%20will%20suffice%20for%20choice%202%20to%20defeat%20further%20discussion.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%20In%20the%20brackets%20next%20to%20your%20preferred%20choice%2C%20place%20a%201.%20Place%20a%202%20in%0A%3E%20%20%20the%20brackets%20next%20to%20your%20next%20choice.%20%20Continue%20until%20you%20reach%20your%20last%0A%3E%20%20%20choice.%20%20Do%20not%20enter%20a%20number%20smaller%20than%201%20or%20larger%20than%203.%20%20You%20may%0A%3E%20%20%20skip%20numbers.%20%20You%20may%20rank%20options%20equally%20%28as%20long%20as%20all%20choices%20X%20you%0A%3E%20%20%20make%20fall%20in%20the%20range%201%20%3C%3D%20X%20%3C%3D%203%29.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%20To%20vote%20%22no%2C%20no%20matter%20what%22%20rank%20%22Further%20discussion%22%20as%20more%0A%3E%20%20%20desirable%20than%20the%20unacceptable%20choices%2C%20or%20You%20may%20rank%20the%20%22Further%0A%3E%20%20%20discussion%22%20choice%2C%20and%20leave%20choices%20you%20consider%20unacceptable%0A%3E%20%20%20blank.%20Unranked%20choices%20are%20considered%20equally%20the%20least%20desired%0A%3E%20%20%20choices%2C%20and%20ranked%20below%20all%20ranked%20choices.%20%28Note%3A%20if%20the%20Further%0A%3E%20%20%20Discussion%20choice%20is%20unranked%2C%20then%20it%20is%20equal%20to%20all%20other%20unranked%0A%3E%20%20%20choices%2C%20if%20any.%29%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20-%20-%20-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%20Don%27t%20Delete%20Anything%20Between%20These%20Lines%20%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%0A%3E%20%5B%20%20%20%5D%20Choice%201%3A%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20udeb%20should%20be%20created%20as%20per%20bug%20%23367709%0A%3E%20%5B%20%20%20%5D%20Choice%202%3A%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20udeb%20should%20not%20be%20created%20despite%20bug%20%23367709%0A%3E%20%5B%20%20%20%5D%20Choice%203%3A%20Further%20discussion%0A%3E%20-%20-%20-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%20Don%27t%20Delete%20Anything%20Between%20These%20Lines%20%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20Call%20for%20vote%3A%20gcc%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B.udeb&References=%3C87lkecdhvp.fsf%40rover.gag.com%3E&In-Reply-To=%3C87lkecdhvp.fsf%40rover.gag.com%3E">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=bdale%40gag.com" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> debian-ctte@lists.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Cc:</span> 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:09:46 +0100</div> </div> <pre class="message">I hereby call for an immediate TC vote on the question of whether a libstdc++ udeb should be created to support the use of C++ in the debian-installer environment, as requested by bug #367709. The udeb structure was invented for debian-installer, and to date Debian has not supported the use of udebs for any other purpose. In the discussion on this issue recorded in the bug log and on our list, it seems clear that the d-i team does not want C++ support in the installer environment, and the gcc maintainer is reluctant to build and support udebs that the installer team doesn't need. The question before us is therefore whether to support or overrule the developer responsible for our gcc packaging, and the developers involved in the debian-installer project. Since this vote may overrule a developer, 6.1.3 of our Constitution requires a 3:1 majority of the TC for choice 1. However, a simple majority will suffice for choice 2 to defeat further discussion. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Continue until you reach your last choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 3. You may skip numbers. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1 <= X <= 3). To vote "no, no matter what" rank "Further discussion" as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or You may rank the "Further discussion" choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any.) - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: a libstdc++ udeb should be created as per bug #367709 [ ] Choice 2: a libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709 [ ] Choice 3: Further discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="84"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=85">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=85">mbox</a>, <a href="#84">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="86"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=87">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=87">mbox</a>, <a href="#86">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="88"></a><a name="msg88"></a><a href="#88">Message #88</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=88">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=88">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20Call%20for%20vote%3A%20gcc%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B.udeb&References=%3Clist.debian.ctte%2587lkecdhvp.fsf%40rover.gag.com%3E%0A%20%3C87d4zockaa.fsf%40rover.gag.com%3E&In-Reply-To=%3C87d4zockaa.fsf%40rover.gag.com%3E&body=On%20Fri%2C%2022%20Jun%202007%2012%3A15%3A25%20%2B0100%20Bdale%20Garbee%20%3Cbdale%40gag.com%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20bdale%40gag.com%20%28Bdale%20Garbee%29%20writes%3A%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20-%20-%20-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%20Don%27t%20Delete%20Anything%20Between%20These%20Lines%20%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%0A%3E%20%3E%20%5B%203%20%5D%20Choice%201%3A%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20udeb%20should%20be%20created%20as%20per%20bug%20%23367709%0A%3E%20%3E%20%5B%201%20%5D%20Choice%202%3A%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20udeb%20should%20not%20be%20created%20despite%20bug%20%23367709%0A%3E%20%3E%20%5B%202%20%5D%20Choice%203%3A%20Further%20discussion%0A%3E%20%3E%20-%20-%20-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%20Don%27t%20Delete%20Anything%20Between%20These%20Lines%20%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20I%20support%20the%20collective%20opinions%20of%20the%20debian-installer%20team%20and%20maintainer%20%0A%3E%20of%20our%20compiler%20packaging.%20%20Further%20discussion%20would%20be%20required%20to%20convince%0A%3E%20me%20that%20we%20should%20overrule%20developer%28s%29%20on%20this%20issue.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20In%20general%2C%20it%20seems%20to%20me%20that%20there%20should%20be%20a%20%22burden%20of%20proof%22%20on%20the%20%0A%3E%20bug%20submitter%20in%20cases%20like%20this%20that%20are%20fundamentally%20a%20request%20for%20a%20new%20%0A%3E%20feature%20addition.%20%20Such%20proof%20might%20include%20implementing%20the%20requested%20change%0A%3E%20by%20creating%20a%20suitably%20patched%20version%20of%20the%20package%20in%20question%2C%20and%20then%20%0A%3E%20showing%20us%20the%20%22cool%20stuff%22%20their%20proposed%20change%20enables%20through%20a%20suitable%20%0A%3E%20demo%20program.%20%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Bdale%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=bdale%40gag.com" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:15:25 +0100</div> </div> <pre class="message">bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee) writes: > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > [ 3 ] Choice 1: a libstdc++ udeb should be created as per bug #367709 > [ 1 ] Choice 2: a libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709 > [ 2 ] Choice 3: Further discussion > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I support the collective opinions of the debian-installer team and maintainer of our compiler packaging. Further discussion would be required to convince me that we should overrule developer(s) on this issue. In general, it seems to me that there should be a "burden of proof" on the bug submitter in cases like this that are fundamentally a request for a new feature addition. Such proof might include implementing the requested change by creating a suitably patched version of the package in question, and then showing us the "cool stuff" their proposed change enables through a suitable demo program. Bdale </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="89"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=90">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=90">mbox</a>, <a href="#89">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="91"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=92">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=92">mbox</a>, <a href="#91">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="93"></a><a name="msg93"></a><a href="#93">Message #93</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=93">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=93">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20Call%20for%20vote%3A%20gcc%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B.udeb&References=%3C87lkecdhvp.fsf%40rover.gag.com%3E%0A%20%3C20070622155155.GA5092%40azure.humbug.org.au%3E&In-Reply-To=%3C20070622155155.GA5092%40azure.humbug.org.au%3E&body=On%20Fri%2C%2022%20Jun%202007%2016%3A51%3A55%20%2B0100%20Anthony%20Towns%20%3Caj%40azure.humbug.org.au%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20On%20Fri%2C%20Jun%2022%2C%202007%20at%2012%3A09%3A46AM%20%2B0100%2C%20Bdale%20Garbee%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20The%20udeb%20structure%20was%20invented%20for%20debian-installer%2C%20and%20to%20date%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Debian%20has%20not%20supported%20the%20use%20of%20udebs%20for%20any%20other%20purpose.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%28With%20ftpmaster%20hat%3A%20I%20would%20expect%20non%20d-i%20uses%20of%20udebs%20to%20be%20in%20a%0A%3E%20different%20section%20of%20the%20archive%20than%20main%2Fdebian-installer%3B%20it%20would%0A%3E%20require%20some%20development%20work%20for%20that%20to%20be%20possible.%20I%20don%27t%20believe%0A%3E%20there%27s%20been%20sufficient%20justification%20for%20non%20d-i%20udebs%20to%20warrant%20that%0A%3E%20effort%20or%20the%20ongoing%20support%20of%20an%20additional%20udeb%20section%29%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20-%20-%20-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%20Don%27t%20Delete%20Anything%20Between%20These%20Lines%20%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%0A%3E%20%3E%20%5B%202%20%5D%20Choice%201%3A%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20udeb%20should%20be%20created%20as%20per%20bug%20%23367709%0A%3E%20%3E%20%5B%201%20%5D%20Choice%202%3A%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20udeb%20should%20not%20be%20created%20despite%20bug%20%23367709%0A%3E%20%3E%20%5B%203%20%5D%20Choice%203%3A%20Further%20discussion%0A%3E%20%3E%20-%20-%20-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%20Don%27t%20Delete%20Anything%20Between%20These%20Lines%20%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Cheers%2C%0A%3E%20aj%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=aj%40azure.humbug.org.au" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:51:55 +0100</div> </div> <pre class="mime">[<a href="bugreport.cgi?att=0;bug=367709;msg=93">Message part 1</a> (text/plain, inline)]</pre> <pre class="message">On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:09:46AM +0100, Bdale Garbee wrote: > The udeb structure was invented for debian-installer, and to date > Debian has not supported the use of udebs for any other purpose. (With ftpmaster hat: I would expect non d-i uses of udebs to be in a different section of the archive than main/debian-installer; it would require some development work for that to be possible. I don't believe there's been sufficient justification for non d-i udebs to warrant that effort or the ongoing support of an additional udeb section) > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > [ 2 ] Choice 1: a libstdc++ udeb should be created as per bug #367709 > [ 1 ] Choice 2: a libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709 > [ 3 ] Choice 3: Further discussion > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Cheers, aj </pre> <pre class="mime">[<a href="bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=367709;filename=signature.asc;msg=93">signature.asc</a> (application/pgp-signature, inline)]</pre> <div class="msgreceived"><hr><p> <a name="94"></a> <strong>Reply sent</strong> to <code>Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com></code>:<br> You have taken responsibility. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=95">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=95">mbox</a>, <a href="#94">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="96"></a> <strong>Notification sent</strong> to <code>Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr></code>:<br> Bug acknowledged by developer. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=97">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=97">mbox</a>, <a href="#96">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="98"></a><a name="msg98"></a><a href="#98">Message #98</a> received at 367709-done@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=98">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=98">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?In-Reply-To=%3C878xacc4id.fsf%40rover.gag.com%3E&References=%3Clist.debian.ctte%2587lkecdhvp.fsf%40rover.gag.com%3E%0A%20%3C878xacc4id.fsf%40rover.gag.com%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20Call%20for%20vote%3A%20gcc%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B.udeb&body=On%20Fri%2C%2022%20Jun%202007%2017%3A56%3A10%20%2B0100%20Bdale%20Garbee%20%3Cbdale%40gag.com%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20bdale%40gag.com%20%28Bdale%20Garbee%29%20writes%3A%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20I%20hereby%20call%20for%20an%20immediate%20TC%20vote%20on%20the%20question%20of%20whether%20a%0A%3E%20%3E%20libstdc%2B%2B%20udeb%20should%20be%20created%20to%20support%20the%20use%20of%20C%2B%2B%20in%20the%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20debian-installer%20environment%2C%20as%20requested%20by%20bug%20%23367709.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20While%20I%20would%20be%20pleased%20to%20see%20responses%20from%20Ian%20and%20Manoj%20at%20their%0A%3E%20convenience%2C%20with%20four%20of%20six%20committee%20members%20responding%2C%20the%20outcome%20%0A%3E%20of%20this%20vote%20is%20no%20longer%20in%20doubt.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20The%20committee%20endorses%20choice%202%2C%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20udeb%20should%20not%20be%20created%20%0A%3E%20despite%20bug%20%23367709.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Bdale%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=bdale%40gag.com" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> debian-ctte@lists.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Cc:</span> 367709-done@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:56:10 +0100</div> </div> <pre class="mime">[<a href="bugreport.cgi?att=0;bug=367709;msg=98">Message part 1</a> (text/plain, inline)]</pre> <pre class="message">bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee) writes: > I hereby call for an immediate TC vote on the question of whether a > libstdc++ udeb should be created to support the use of C++ in the > debian-installer environment, as requested by bug #367709. While I would be pleased to see responses from Ian and Manoj at their convenience, with four of six committee members responding, the outcome of this vote is no longer in doubt. The committee endorses choice 2, a libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709. Bdale </pre> <pre class="mime">[<a href="bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=367709;msg=98">Message part 2</a> (application/pgp-signature, inline)]</pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="99"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=100">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=100">mbox</a>, <a href="#99">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="101"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=102">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=102">mbox</a>, <a href="#101">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="103"></a><a name="msg103"></a><a href="#103">Message #103</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=103">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=103">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?body=On%20Sun%2C%2024%20Jun%202007%2007%3A56%3A56%20%2B0200%20Sven%20Luther%20%3Csven%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20reopen%20367709%0A%3E%20thanks%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Dear%20Technical%20Committee%20members%2C%20...%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20There%20is%20still%20no%20reason%20to%20close%20this%20bug%2C%20and%20no%20reason%20to%20not%20create%0A%3E%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Furthermore%2C%20the%20decision%20of%20the%20d-i%20team%20on%20this%20was%20highly%0A%3E%20overshadowed%20by%20their%20personal%20vendetta%20against%20me%2C%20and%20not%20based%20on%0A%3E%20technical%20argumentation.%20In%20particular%2C%20it%20was%20based%20on%20the%20sole%0A%3E%20decision%20of%20Frans%20Pop%2C%20and%20we%20all%20know%20he%20has%20not%20acted%20exemplarily%20on%0A%3E%20this.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20The%20fact%20that%20you%20chose%20to%20close%20this%20bug%20now%2C%20because%20i%20have%20been%0A%3E%20expulsed%20in%20a%20way%20debian%20should%20be%20most%20ashamed%20of%2C%20shows%20that%20your%0A%3E%20decision%20is%20only%20marginally%20guided%20by%20technical%20reasons.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20It%20costs%20nothing%20to%20create%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%2C%20the%20only%20reason%20not%20to%20do%0A%3E%20it%20is%20to%20accomodate%20the%20debian-installer%20team%2C%20who%20has%20irrationally%0A%3E%20refused%20it%2C%20not%20for%20technical%20reason%2C%20but%20out%20of%20conservative%20dogma%2C%20and%0A%3E%20private%20feud%20against%20me.%20Just%20look%20at%20how%20Frans%20Pop%20leashed%20out%20against%0A%3E%20Eddy%20Petrisor%2C%20when%20he%20dared%20critic%20the%20current%20version%20of%20the%20d-i%0A%3E%20partitioning%20tool%2C%20and%20menaced%20him%20of%20going%20the%20same%20way%20as%20i%20have.%20He%0A%3E%20did%20that%2C%20not%20because%20of%20argumented%20reasoning%2C%20but%20because%20i%20encouraged%0A%3E%20Xavier%20Oswald%20to%20work%20on%20a%20gparted%20based%20.udeb%20for%20the%20installer%2C%20which%0A%3E%20required%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Creating%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20would%20allow%20to%20have%20in%20the%20d-i%20archive%20a%0A%3E%20partimage%20.udeb%2C%20which%20would%20allow%20for%20seamless%20backuping%20and%20restoring%0A%3E%20of%20partitions.%20Thhis%20does%20not%20need%20to%20be%20part%20of%20d-i%20propper%2C%20since%20the%0A%3E%20d-i%20leadership%20has%20%28mis%29judged%20that%20c%2B%2B%20in%20the%20d-i%20is%20anathema%2C%20but%20it%0A%3E%20can%20easily%20be%20downloaded%20as%20extra%20package%20without%20any%20cost%20to%20d-i.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20So%2C%20please%20stand%20up%20to%20your%20name%2C%20and%20look%20at%20this%20issue%20in%20a%20solely%0A%3E%20technical%20way%2C%20and%20look%20at%20the%20benefits%20of%20creating%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%2C%0A%3E%20over%20the%20cost%20of%20not%20doing%20so.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20So%2C%20the%20comparison%20is%20between%20having%20ghost-like%20capability%20available%0A%3E%20optionnally%20in%20d-i%2C%20and%20reinforcing%20the%20pride%20of%20a%20few%20DDs%20who%20let%20their%0A%3E%20personal%20vendetta%20go%20over%20technical%20judgement.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20But%20then%2C%20given%20that%20i%20was%20destroyed%20fully%20just%20because%20of%20this%20same%0A%3E%20issue%2C%20i%20fair%20that%20you%20will%20not%20be%20able%20for%20whatever%20reason%20to%20make%20an%0A%3E%20objective%20technical%20decision%20on%20this%2C%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20How%20sad%2C%20...%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Sadly%2C%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Sven%20Luther%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A&In-Reply-To=%3C20070624055656.GA23076%40powerlinux.fr%3E&subject=Re%3A%20There%20is%20still%20no%20valid%20reason%20to%20close%20this%20bug.&References=%3C20070624055656.GA23076%40powerlinux.fr%3E">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=sven%40powerlinux.fr" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> control@bugs.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> There is still no valid reason to close this bug.</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Sun, 24 Jun 2007 07:56:56 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">reopen 367709 thanks Dear Technical Committee members, ... There is still no reason to close this bug, and no reason to not create a libstdc++ .udeb. Furthermore, the decision of the d-i team on this was highly overshadowed by their personal vendetta against me, and not based on technical argumentation. In particular, it was based on the sole decision of Frans Pop, and we all know he has not acted exemplarily on this. The fact that you chose to close this bug now, because i have been expulsed in a way debian should be most ashamed of, shows that your decision is only marginally guided by technical reasons. It costs nothing to create a libstdc++ .udeb, the only reason not to do it is to accomodate the debian-installer team, who has irrationally refused it, not for technical reason, but out of conservative dogma, and private feud against me. Just look at how Frans Pop leashed out against Eddy Petrisor, when he dared critic the current version of the d-i partitioning tool, and menaced him of going the same way as i have. He did that, not because of argumented reasoning, but because i encouraged Xavier Oswald to work on a gparted based .udeb for the installer, which required a libstdc++ .udeb. Creating a libstdc++ .udeb would allow to have in the d-i archive a partimage .udeb, which would allow for seamless backuping and restoring of partitions. Thhis does not need to be part of d-i propper, since the d-i leadership has (mis)judged that c++ in the d-i is anathema, but it can easily be downloaded as extra package without any cost to d-i. So, please stand up to your name, and look at this issue in a solely technical way, and look at the benefits of creating a libstdc++ .udeb, over the cost of not doing so. So, the comparison is between having ghost-like capability available optionnally in d-i, and reinforcing the pride of a few DDs who let their personal vendetta go over technical judgement. But then, given that i was destroyed fully just because of this same issue, i fair that you will not be able for whatever reason to make an objective technical decision on this, How sad, ... Sadly, Sven Luther </pre> <div class="msgreceived"><hr><p> <a name="104"></a>  <strong>Bug reopened, originator not changed.</strong> Request was from <code>Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></code> to <code>control@bugs.debian.org</code>. (Sun, 24 Jun 2007 06:00:06 GMT) (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=105">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=105">mbox</a>, <a href="#104">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="106"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=107">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=107">mbox</a>, <a href="#106">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="108"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>debian-project@lists.debian.org</code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=109">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=109">mbox</a>, <a href="#108">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="110"></a><a name="msg110"></a><a href="#110">Message #110</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=110">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=110">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?body=On%20Sun%2C%2024%20Jun%202007%2008%3A42%3A45%20%2B0200%20Martin%20Zobel-Helas%20%3Czobel%40ftbfs.de%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20Hi%20Sven%2C%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20On%20Sun%20Jun%2024%2C%202007%20at%2008%3A05%3A10%20%2B0200%2C%20Sven%20Luther%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20There%20is%20still%20no%20reason%20to%20close%20this%20bug%2C%20and%20no%20reason%20to%20not%20create%0A%3E%20%3E%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Furthermore%2C%20the%20decision%20of%20the%20d-i%20team%20on%20this%20was%20highly%0A%3E%20%3E%20overshadowed%20by%20their%20personal%20vendetta%20against%20me%2C%20and%20not%20based%20on%0A%3E%20%3E%20technical%20argumentation.%20In%20particular%2C%20it%20was%20based%20on%20the%20sole%0A%3E%20%3E%20decision%20of%20Frans%20Pop%2C%20and%20we%20all%20know%20he%20has%20not%20acted%20exemplarily%20on%0A%3E%20%3E%20this.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20The%20fact%20that%20you%20chose%20to%20close%20this%20bug%20now%2C%20because%20i%20have%20been%0A%3E%20%3E%20expulsed%20in%20a%20way%20debian%20should%20be%20most%20ashamed%20of%2C%20shows%20that%20your%0A%3E%20%3E%20decision%20is%20only%20marginally%20guided%20by%20technical%20reasons.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20You%20opened%20a%20bug%20against%20the%20ctte%2C%20which%20is%20your%20perfect%20right%20as%20Debian%0A%3E%20Package%20Maintainer.%20With%20this%20bug%20you%20asked%20for%20technical%20advice%20from%0A%3E%20the%20ctte%20team.%20The%20ctte%20had%20it%27s%20discussion%20from%20May%2017th%2C%202006%20whereas%0A%3E%20in%20the%20end%20Bdale%20Garbee%20called%20for%20a%20vote%20on%20June%2022nd%2C%202007.%20The%0A%3E%20outcome%20of%20the%20vote%20%28as%20outlined%20by%20Bdale%20in%20Message-ID%3A%0A%3E%20%3C878xacc4id.fsf%40rover.gag.com%3E%29%20is%20that%20the%20committee%20endorses%20choice%202%2C%0A%3E%20and%20libstdc%2B%2B%20udeb%20should%20not%20be%20created%20despite%20bug%20%23367709.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20I%20see%20no%20misstake%20in%20the%20whole%20procedure.%20You%20asked%20for%20advice%2C%20they%0A%3E%20voted%2C%20the%20outcome%20was%20quite%20clear%2C%20case%20closed%20for%20the%20ctte.%20Please%0A%3E%20respect%20the%20outcome%20of%20their%20vote%2C%20as%20you%20yourself%20asked%20for%20it.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Please%20try%20to%20understand%20that%20you%20should%20accept%20their%20oppinion%20even%0A%3E%20though%20they%20didn%27t%20vote%20in%20favour%20for%20your%20wish.%20Such%20things%20happen%2C%20in%0A%3E%20Debian%20as%20well%20as%20in%20politics.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Greetings%0A%3E%20Martin%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20PS%3A%20i%20set%20the%20reply-to%20to%20debian-project%20and%20will%20%28as%20listmaster%29%20accept%0A%3E%20answers%20from%20you%20to%20that%20thread%20there%2C%20as%20long%20as%20they%20stay%20on%20technical%0A%3E%20stuff%2C%20and%20are%20not%20personal%20insults%20against%20any%20member%20of%20the%20Debian%0A%3E%20Project.%0A%3E%20--%20%0A%3E%20%5Broot%40debian%20%2Froot%5D%23%20man%20real-life%0A%3E%20No%20manual%20entry%20for%20real-life%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A&References=%3C20070624055656.GA23076%40powerlinux.fr%3E%0A%20%3C20070624064245.GL18428%40ftbfs.de%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20There%20is%20still%20no%20valid%20reason%20to%20close%20this%20bug.&In-Reply-To=%3C20070624064245.GL18428%40ftbfs.de%3E">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=zobel%40ftbfs.de" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@ftbfs.de></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>, 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: There is still no valid reason to close this bug.</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Sun, 24 Jun 2007 08:42:45 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">Hi Sven, On Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:05:10 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > There is still no reason to close this bug, and no reason to not create > a libstdc++ .udeb. > > Furthermore, the decision of the d-i team on this was highly > overshadowed by their personal vendetta against me, and not based on > technical argumentation. In particular, it was based on the sole > decision of Frans Pop, and we all know he has not acted exemplarily on > this. > > The fact that you chose to close this bug now, because i have been > expulsed in a way debian should be most ashamed of, shows that your > decision is only marginally guided by technical reasons. You opened a bug against the ctte, which is your perfect right as Debian Package Maintainer. With this bug you asked for technical advice from the ctte team. The ctte had it's discussion from May 17th, 2006 whereas in the end Bdale Garbee called for a vote on June 22nd, 2007. The outcome of the vote (as outlined by Bdale in Message-ID: <878xacc4id.fsf@rover.gag.com>) is that the committee endorses choice 2, and libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709. I see no misstake in the whole procedure. You asked for advice, they voted, the outcome was quite clear, case closed for the ctte. Please respect the outcome of their vote, as you yourself asked for it. Please try to understand that you should accept their oppinion even though they didn't vote in favour for your wish. Such things happen, in Debian as well as in politics. Greetings Martin PS: i set the reply-to to debian-project and will (as listmaster) accept answers from you to that thread there, as long as they stay on technical stuff, and are not personal insults against any member of the Debian Project. -- [root@debian /root]# man real-life No manual entry for real-life </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="111"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=112">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=112">mbox</a>, <a href="#111">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="113"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=114">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=114">mbox</a>, <a href="#113">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="115"></a><a name="msg115"></a><a href="#115">Message #115</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=115">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=115">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20There%20is%20still%20no%20valid%20reason%20to%20close%20this%20bug.&References=%3C20070624055656.GA23076%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3C20070624064245.GL18428%40ftbfs.de%3E%0A%20%3C20070624071917.GA24348%40powerlinux.fr%3E&In-Reply-To=%3C20070624071917.GA24348%40powerlinux.fr%3E&body=On%20Sun%2C%2024%20Jun%202007%2009%3A19%3A17%20%2B0200%20Sven%20Luther%20%3Csven%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20On%20Sun%2C%20Jun%2024%2C%202007%20at%2008%3A42%3A45AM%20%2B0200%2C%20Martin%20Zobel-Helas%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20Hi%20Sven%2C%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20On%20Sun%20Jun%2024%2C%202007%20at%2008%3A05%3A10%20%2B0200%2C%20Sven%20Luther%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20There%20is%20still%20no%20reason%20to%20close%20this%20bug%2C%20and%20no%20reason%20to%20not%20create%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20Furthermore%2C%20the%20decision%20of%20the%20d-i%20team%20on%20this%20was%20highly%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20overshadowed%20by%20their%20personal%20vendetta%20against%20me%2C%20and%20not%20based%20on%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20technical%20argumentation.%20In%20particular%2C%20it%20was%20based%20on%20the%20sole%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20decision%20of%20Frans%20Pop%2C%20and%20we%20all%20know%20he%20has%20not%20acted%20exemplarily%20on%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20this.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20The%20fact%20that%20you%20chose%20to%20close%20this%20bug%20now%2C%20because%20i%20have%20been%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20expulsed%20in%20a%20way%20debian%20should%20be%20most%20ashamed%20of%2C%20shows%20that%20your%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20decision%20is%20only%20marginally%20guided%20by%20technical%20reasons.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20You%20opened%20a%20bug%20against%20the%20ctte%2C%20which%20is%20your%20perfect%20right%20as%20Debian%0A%3E%20%3E%20Package%20Maintainer.%20With%20this%20bug%20you%20asked%20for%20technical%20advice%20from%0A%3E%20%3E%20the%20ctte%20team.%20The%20ctte%20had%20it%27s%20discussion%20from%20May%2017th%2C%202006%20whereas%0A%3E%20%3E%20in%20the%20end%20Bdale%20Garbee%20called%20for%20a%20vote%20on%20June%2022nd%2C%202007.%20The%0A%3E%20%3E%20outcome%20of%20the%20vote%20%28as%20outlined%20by%20Bdale%20in%20Message-ID%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3C878xacc4id.fsf%40rover.gag.com%3E%29%20is%20that%20the%20committee%20endorses%20choice%202%2C%0A%3E%20%3E%20and%20libstdc%2B%2B%20udeb%20should%20not%20be%20created%20despite%20bug%20%23367709.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Exact%2C%20and%20the%20first%20closing%20was%20%3A%20%22it%20makes%20no%20more%20sense%20to%20keep%20this%0A%3E%20bug%20open%22%2C%20or%20in%20other%20words%2C%20%22we%20got%20ride%20of%20Sven%20Luther%2C%20so%20there%20is%0A%3E%20no%20sense%20in%20keeping%20this%20bug%20open%22.%20There%20was%20no%20discussion%20on%20the%0A%3E%20technical%20merits%20of%20the%20bug%2C%20but%20rather%20the%20decision%20was%20made%20back%20then%0A%3E%20not%20to%20offense%20Frans%20Pop%20and%20the%20d-i%20team%2C%20and%20was%20not%20objective%20since%20i%0A%3E%20was%20already%20condemned%20as%20a%20whiner%20and%20trouble%20maker.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20The%20question%20is%2C%20do%20you%20consider%20that%20having%20partimage%20available%20in%20the%0A%3E%20debian-installer%2C%20even%20if%20optionally%2C%20is%20a%20good%20thing%20%28and%20if%20you%20say%0A%3E%20no%2C%20please%20argument%2C%20because%20i%20doubt%20anyone%20can%20honestly%20say%20no%20to%20this%0A%3E%20one%29%2C%20and%20then%20compare%20it%20ot%20the%20cost%20of%20implementing%20this%20%28having%0A%3E%20libstdc%2B%2B%20and%20a%20few%20others%20in%20the%20archive%29.%20And%20make%20a%20real%0A%3E%20investigation%20of%20the%20cost%2C%20and%20not%20take%20the%20words%20of%20a%20few%20guys%20who%20have%0A%3E%20proven%20amply%20that%20they%20are%20not%20able%20to%20take%20a%20decision%20on%20technical%0A%3E%20merits%2C%20if%20it%20goes%20against%20their%20hatefulness%20and%20private%20feud.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20I%20see%20no%20misstake%20in%20the%20whole%20procedure.%20You%20asked%20for%20advice%2C%20they%0A%3E%20%3E%20voted%2C%20the%20outcome%20was%20quite%20clear%2C%20case%20closed%20for%20the%20ctte.%20Please%0A%3E%20%3E%20respect%20the%20outcome%20of%20their%20vote%2C%20as%20you%20yourself%20asked%20for%20it.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Please%20reread%20the%20first%20bug%20closer%20of%20Bdale%2C%20and%20you%20will%20see%20there%20is%0A%3E%20no%20technical%20reason%20at%20all%2C%20just%20a%20followup%20of%20debian%20behaving%20like%0A%3E%20petty%20dictatorship%2C%20and%20kicking%20me%20out%20and%20banning%20me%2C%20just%20to%20silence%0A%3E%20me%2C%20and%20in%20this%20way%20hide%20its%20shame.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Please%20try%20to%20understand%20that%20you%20should%20accept%20their%20oppinion%20even%0A%3E%20%3E%20though%20they%20didn%27t%20vote%20in%20favour%20for%20your%20wish.%20Such%20things%20happen%2C%20in%0A%3E%20%3E%20Debian%20as%20well%20as%20in%20politics.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Well%2C%20if%20you%20provided%20a%20valid%20technical%20argumentation%2C%20weighing%20the%20pro%0A%3E%20and%20contra%20points%2C%20and%20then%20taking%20a%20decision%2C%20then%20it%20would%20be%0A%3E%20acceptable%2C%20but%20this%20is%20not%20this%20case%2C%20there%20was%20no%20technical%20decision%2C%0A%3E%20but%20a%20decision%20based%20on%20behyind%20the%20scene%20lobyying%2C%20and%20influence%2C%20or%0A%3E%20more%20likely%20because%20debian%20decided%20to%20go%20in%20a%20witch%20hunt%20against%20me%2C%20and%0A%3E%20now%20that%20i%20have%20been%20lynched%2C%20you%20are%20unable%20to%20go%20by%20any%20other%20decision%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=sven%40powerlinux.fr" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> debian-project@lists.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Cc:</span> 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: There is still no valid reason to close this bug.</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Sun, 24 Jun 2007 09:19:17 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 08:42:45AM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > Hi Sven, > > On Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:05:10 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > There is still no reason to close this bug, and no reason to not create > > a libstdc++ .udeb. > > > > Furthermore, the decision of the d-i team on this was highly > > overshadowed by their personal vendetta against me, and not based on > > technical argumentation. In particular, it was based on the sole > > decision of Frans Pop, and we all know he has not acted exemplarily on > > this. > > > > The fact that you chose to close this bug now, because i have been > > expulsed in a way debian should be most ashamed of, shows that your > > decision is only marginally guided by technical reasons. > > You opened a bug against the ctte, which is your perfect right as Debian > Package Maintainer. With this bug you asked for technical advice from > the ctte team. The ctte had it's discussion from May 17th, 2006 whereas > in the end Bdale Garbee called for a vote on June 22nd, 2007. The > outcome of the vote (as outlined by Bdale in Message-ID: > <878xacc4id.fsf@rover.gag.com>) is that the committee endorses choice 2, > and libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709. Exact, and the first closing was : "it makes no more sense to keep this bug open", or in other words, "we got ride of Sven Luther, so there is no sense in keeping this bug open". There was no discussion on the technical merits of the bug, but rather the decision was made back then not to offense Frans Pop and the d-i team, and was not objective since i was already condemned as a whiner and trouble maker. The question is, do you consider that having partimage available in the debian-installer, even if optionally, is a good thing (and if you say no, please argument, because i doubt anyone can honestly say no to this one), and then compare it ot the cost of implementing this (having libstdc++ and a few others in the archive). And make a real investigation of the cost, and not take the words of a few guys who have proven amply that they are not able to take a decision on technical merits, if it goes against their hatefulness and private feud. > I see no misstake in the whole procedure. You asked for advice, they > voted, the outcome was quite clear, case closed for the ctte. Please > respect the outcome of their vote, as you yourself asked for it. Please reread the first bug closer of Bdale, and you will see there is no technical reason at all, just a followup of debian behaving like petty dictatorship, and kicking me out and banning me, just to silence me, and in this way hide its shame. > Please try to understand that you should accept their oppinion even > though they didn't vote in favour for your wish. Such things happen, in > Debian as well as in politics. Well, if you provided a valid technical argumentation, weighing the pro and contra points, and then taking a decision, then it would be acceptable, but this is not this case, there was no technical decision, but a decision based on behyind the scene lobyying, and influence, or more likely because debian decided to go in a witch hunt against me, and now that i have been lynched, you are unable to go by any other decision other than continuing in your shameful ways. So, i defy you to come up with a reasoned and argumented objective discussion on the technical merit of having a libstdc++ .udeb package in the archive, and once you have made that, then i will abide by whatever decision you take. Is this too much to ask ? Are you not the "technical" committee, and not the mafioso-like influence committee ? Sadly, Sven Luther </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="116"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=117">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=117">mbox</a>, <a href="#116">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="118"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=119">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=119">mbox</a>, <a href="#118">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="120"></a><a name="msg120"></a><a href="#120">Message #120</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=120">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=120">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?In-Reply-To=%3C20070624090038.GA24978%40powerlinux.fr%3E&subject=Re%3A%20more%20info%20...&References=%3C20070624090038.GA24978%40powerlinux.fr%3E&body=On%20Sun%2C%2024%20Jun%202007%2011%3A00%3A38%20%2B0200%20Sven%20Luther%20%3Csven%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20First%2C%20i%20wonder%20why%20i%2C%20as%20author%20of%20this%20bug%2C%20was%20not%20firwarded%0A%3E%20discussion%20happening%20about%20this%20instead%20of%20first%20noticing%20there%20is%0A%3E%20further%20action%20about%20this.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Second%2C%20about%20Bdale%27s%20comments%20%3A%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%201%29%20asking%20that%20the%20solution%20is%20implemented%2C%20without%20at%20least%20a%20hint%0A%3E%20%20%20that%20it%20will%20not%20be%20lost%20time%20is%20not%20nice.%20The%20degree%20of%20frustration%0A%3E%20%20%20generated%20by%20debian%20in%20such%20situations%20is%20a%20very%20bad%20thing%2C%20and%20debian%0A%3E%20%20%20is%20known%20for%20letting%20patches%20molder%20in%20the%20BTS%2C%20just%20look%20at%20this%20guy%0A%3E%20%20%20who%20wanted%20to%20provide%20TeX%20fixed%20packages%20on%20-vote%20for%20an%20example.%20or%0A%3E%20%20%20the%20X%20patch%20i%20provided%20some%204-5%20years%20ago%2C%20which%20would%20have%20allowed%20to%0A%3E%20%20%20build%20out-of-tree%20X%20drivers%2C%20and%20was%20never%20applied%2C%20even%20though%20the%0A%3E%20%20%20patch%20was%20applied%20upstream%2C%20and%20only%20a%20single%20line%20patching%20of%20the%0A%3E%20%20%20debian%20specific%20stuff%20needed.%20It%20stayed%20unfixed%20during%20years%2C%20until%0A%3E%20%20%20Xorg%20made%20the%20patch%20obsolet.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%202%29%20Second%2C%20asking%20for%20an%20existing%20implementation%2C%20before%20judging%2C%0A%3E%20%20%20shows%20a%20uther%20lack%20of%20imagination%2C%20or%20are%20there%20really%20any%20doubt%20that%0A%3E%20%20%20i%20%28or%20others%29%20will%20really%20be%20unable%20to%20provide%20a%20partimage%20.udeb%2C%20or%0A%3E%20%20%20do%20you%20in%20any%20way%20fail%20to%20understand%20what%20a%20partimage%20.udeb%20will%20bring%0A%3E%20%20%20as%20functionality%20%3F%20If%20this%20is%20the%20case%2C%20i%20guess%20one%20could%20question%0A%3E%20%20%20your%20ability%20to%20be%20part%20of%20the%20technical%20committee%20%3A%29%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%203%29%20in%20fall%202005%2C%20i%20was%20the%20responsible%20of%20a%20praktikum%20%28or%20whatever%20you%0A%3E%20%20%20call%20it%20in%20english%29%2C%20where%20xavier%20oswald%20was%20working%20on%20this%20for%20his%0A%3E%20%20%20studies.%20This%20was%20when%20we%20first%20faced%20the%20stubborn%20opposition%20of%20the%0A%3E%20%20%20d-i%20team%2C%20and%20the%20lack%20of%20support%20made%20us%20change%20the%20plan%20to%20a%0A%3E%20%20%20reimplementation%20of%20gparted%2C%20whose%20code%20now%20is%20moldering%20away%20in%20svn%0A%3E%20%20%20repo%20at%20alioth%2C%20and%20was%20never%20used.%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%204%29%20During%20the%20extremadura%20g-i%20meeting%2C%20Both%20Attilio%20and%20Davide%2C%20the%0A%3E%20%20%20two%20motors%20of%20the%20graphical%20installer%20work%2C%20told%20me%20how%20interesting%0A%3E%20%20%20the%20idea%20of%20having%20a%20partimage%20.udeb%20was%2C%20and%20how%20this%20could%20make%20the%0A%3E%20%20%20resulting%20d-i%20much%20more%20useful%20than%20just%20to%20install%20debian.%20I%20am%0A%3E%20%20%20unsure%20if%20they%20would%20chose%20to%20repeat%20these%20words%20today%2C%20given%20the%20hate%0A%3E%20%20%20and%20FUD%20campaign%20against%20me%20by%20the%20d-i%20leadership%2C%20and%20how%20Frans%0A%3E%20%20%20threatened%20Eddy%20Petrisor%20for%20daring%20say%20that%20the%20current%20partitioner%0A%3E%20%20%20in%20d-i%20is%20less%20than%20perfect%2C%20but%20the%20facts%20remain%20that%20others%20than%0A%3E%20%20%20just%20me%20may%20find%20it%20useful.%20I%20am%20sure%20even%20yourself%20would%20find%20a%20use%0A%3E%20%20%20for%20such%20a%20tool.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%205%29%20it%20is%20a%20bit%20hypocrit%20to%20tell%20me%20now%20i%20should%20bring%20a%20proof%20of%0A%3E%20%20%20concept%2C%20after%20i%20have%20been%20electronically%20stoned%2C%20and%20left%20bleeding%20on%0A%3E%20%20%20the%20road-side%2C%20and%20have%20all%20my%20technical%20rights%2C%20and%20email%20posting%0A%3E%20%20%20ability%20be%20removed.%20You%20had%20over%20a%20year%20to%20ask%20for%20this%2C%20yet%20there%20was%0A%3E%20%20%20no%20interest%20in%20this%20from%20your%20part.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%206%29%20one%20of%20the%20path%20envisioned%20by%20the%20debian-embedded%20folks%20%28emdebian%2C%0A%3E%20%20%20and%20others%29%20was%20to%20use%20.udebs%20and%20the%20d-i%20framework%20to%20build%20embedded%0A%3E%20%20%20systems%2C%20since%20technically%2C%20both%20could%20benefit%20from%20the%20synergy%20of%0A%3E%20%20%20this.%20I%20know%20that%20even%20Raphael%20Hertzog%20did%20some%20payed%20job%2C%20where%20he%0A%3E%20%20%20gave%20his%20customers%20a%20semi-embedded%20system%20based%20on%20.udeb%20and%20d-i%0A%3E%20%20%20technology%2C%20so%20i%20guess%20others%20have%20thought%20of%20this%20also.%20I%20doubt%0A%3E%20%20%20Raphael%20would%20admit%20this%20today%20though%2C%20given%20the%20d-i%20vendetta%20and%20the%0A%3E%20%20%20electronic%20blood%20bath%20that%20followed%2C%20though.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Again%2C%20there%20is%20little%20cost%20in%20having%20a%20.udeb%20libstdc%2B%2B%20packages%2C%20and%20it%0A%3E%20will%20pave%20the%20way%20to%20many%20new%20options%20and%20oportunities.%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=sven%40powerlinux.fr" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> more info ...</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:00:38 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">First, i wonder why i, as author of this bug, was not firwarded discussion happening about this instead of first noticing there is further action about this. Second, about Bdale's comments : 1) asking that the solution is implemented, without at least a hint that it will not be lost time is not nice. The degree of frustration generated by debian in such situations is a very bad thing, and debian is known for letting patches molder in the BTS, just look at this guy who wanted to provide TeX fixed packages on -vote for an example. or the X patch i provided some 4-5 years ago, which would have allowed to build out-of-tree X drivers, and was never applied, even though the patch was applied upstream, and only a single line patching of the debian specific stuff needed. It stayed unfixed during years, until Xorg made the patch obsolet. 2) Second, asking for an existing implementation, before judging, shows a uther lack of imagination, or are there really any doubt that i (or others) will really be unable to provide a partimage .udeb, or do you in any way fail to understand what a partimage .udeb will bring as functionality ? If this is the case, i guess one could question your ability to be part of the technical committee :) 3) in fall 2005, i was the responsible of a praktikum (or whatever you call it in english), where xavier oswald was working on this for his studies. This was when we first faced the stubborn opposition of the d-i team, and the lack of support made us change the plan to a reimplementation of gparted, whose code now is moldering away in svn repo at alioth, and was never used. 4) During the extremadura g-i meeting, Both Attilio and Davide, the two motors of the graphical installer work, told me how interesting the idea of having a partimage .udeb was, and how this could make the resulting d-i much more useful than just to install debian. I am unsure if they would chose to repeat these words today, given the hate and FUD campaign against me by the d-i leadership, and how Frans threatened Eddy Petrisor for daring say that the current partitioner in d-i is less than perfect, but the facts remain that others than just me may find it useful. I am sure even yourself would find a use for such a tool. 5) it is a bit hypocrit to tell me now i should bring a proof of concept, after i have been electronically stoned, and left bleeding on the road-side, and have all my technical rights, and email posting ability be removed. You had over a year to ask for this, yet there was no interest in this from your part. 6) one of the path envisioned by the debian-embedded folks (emdebian, and others) was to use .udebs and the d-i framework to build embedded systems, since technically, both could benefit from the synergy of this. I know that even Raphael Hertzog did some payed job, where he gave his customers a semi-embedded system based on .udeb and d-i technology, so i guess others have thought of this also. I doubt Raphael would admit this today though, given the d-i vendetta and the electronic blood bath that followed, though. Again, there is little cost in having a .udeb libstdc++ packages, and it will pave the way to many new options and oportunities. The conservativeness of Debian is what made people go away, and look for out-of-debian solution, and was one of the funding reasons of Ubuntu, so give a technical reasoning, and have a bit more technical vision, than cathering to the worse political lobbying and shady dealings, which is what debian has been privilegying these past days. Sadly, Sven Luther </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="121"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=122">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=122">mbox</a>, <a href="#121">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="123"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=124">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=124">mbox</a>, <a href="#123">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="125"></a><a name="msg125"></a><a href="#125">Message #125</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=125">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=125">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?In-Reply-To=%3C20070624090125.GA25244%40powerlinux.fr%3E&References=%3C20070624090125.GA25244%40powerlinux.fr%3E&subject=Re%3A%20reoppening%2C%20...&body=On%20Sun%2C%2024%20Jun%202007%2011%3A01%3A25%20%2B0200%20Sven%20Luther%20%3Csven%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20reopen%20367709%0A%3E%20thanks%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=sven%40powerlinux.fr" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> control@bugs.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> reoppening, ...</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:01:25 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">reopen 367709 thanks </pre> <div class="msgreceived"><hr><p> <a name="126"></a>  <strong>Bug closed, send any further explanations to Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr></strong> Request was from <code>Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org></code> to <code>control@bugs.debian.org</code>. (Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:06:49 GMT) (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=127">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=127">mbox</a>, <a href="#126">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="msgreceived"><hr><p> <a name="128"></a>  <strong>Bug reopened, originator not changed.</strong> Request was from <code>Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></code> to <code>control@bugs.debian.org</code>. (Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:06:52 GMT) (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=129">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=129">mbox</a>, <a href="#128">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="130"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=131">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=131">mbox</a>, <a href="#130">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="132"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=133">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=133">mbox</a>, <a href="#132">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="134"></a><a name="msg134"></a><a href="#134">Message #134</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=134">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=134">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?body=On%20Mon%2C%2025%20Jun%202007%2017%3A32%3A53%20%2B0100%20Ian%20Jackson%20%3Cian%40davenant.greenend.org.uk%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20Bdale%20Garbee%20writes%20%28%22Bug%23367709%3A%20Call%20for%20vote%3A%20gcc%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B.udeb%22%29%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20I%20hereby%20call%20for%20an%20immediate%20TC%20vote%20on%20the%20question%20of%20whether%20a%0A%3E%20%3E%20libstdc%2B%2B%20udeb%20should%20be%20created%20to%20support%20the%20use%20of%20C%2B%2B%20in%20the%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20debian-installer%20environment%2C%20as%20requested%20by%20bug%20%23367709.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20The%20udeb%20structure%20was%20invented%20for%20debian-installer%2C%20and%20to%20date%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Debian%20has%20not%20supported%20the%20use%20of%20udebs%20for%20any%20other%20purpose.%0A%3E%20%3E%20In%20the%20discussion%20on%20this%20issue%20recorded%20in%20the%20bug%20log%20and%20on%20our%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20list%2C%20it%20seems%20clear%20that%20the%20d-i%20team%20does%20not%20want%20C%2B%2B%20support%20in%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20the%20installer%20environment%2C%20and%20the%20gcc%20maintainer%20is%20reluctant%20to%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20build%20and%20support%20udebs%20that%20the%20installer%20team%20doesn%27t%20need.%20%20The%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20question%20before%20us%20is%20therefore%20whether%20to%20support%20or%20overrule%20the%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20developer%20responsible%20for%20our%20gcc%20packaging%2C%20and%20the%20developers%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20involved%20in%20the%20debian-installer%20project.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20I%27m%20reluctant%20to%20rule%20on%20this%20now%20in%20this%20way.%20%20Mainly%2C%20because%20in%20the%0A%3E%20future%20somebody%20%28other%20than%20Sven%29%20might%20come%20up%20with%20a%20good%20reason%20to%0A%3E%20do%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20udeb%20and%20then%20people%20will%20think%20we%20have%20forbidden%20it%0A%3E%20%28or%20advised%20against%20it%29.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20I%20don%27t%20think%20we%20have%20really%20had%20a%20proper%20technical%20discussion%20about%0A%3E%20this%20-%20at%20least%2C%20not%20one%20that%27s%20finished.%20%20Until%20we%20have%20one%2C%20I%20don%27t%0A%3E%20think%20we%20should%20make%20this%20decision.%20%20That%20discussion%20would%20need%20the%0A%3E%20services%20of%20someone%20competent%20and%20useful%20to%20champion%20the%20%60pro%27%0A%3E%20arguments%2C%20but%20at%20the%20moment%20we%20don%27t%20have%20any%20such%20person%20available.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20So%20I%20would%20prefer%20my%20previous%20resolution%20instead%20of%20this%20one%20-%20but%20I%0A%3E%20didn%27t%20get%20enough%20support%20for%20that.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Regarding%20this%20resolution%2C%20I%27d%20like%20my%20vote%20as%20follows%20to%20be%20recorded%0A%3E%20although%20the%20outcome%20is%20no%20longer%20in%20doubt%20%28and%20the%20committee%20seems%20to%0A%3E%20disagree%20with%20me%29.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20-%20-%20-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%20Don%27t%20Delete%20Anything%20Between%20These%20Lines%20%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%0A%3E%20%3E%20%5B%203%20%5D%20Choice%201%3A%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20udeb%20should%20be%20created%20as%20per%20bug%20%23367709%0A%3E%20%3E%20%5B%202%20%5D%20Choice%202%3A%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20udeb%20should%20not%20be%20created%20despite%20bug%20%23367709%0A%3E%20%3E%20%5B%201%20%5D%20Choice%203%3A%20Further%20discussion%0A%3E%20%3E%20-%20-%20-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%20Don%27t%20Delete%20Anything%20Between%20These%20Lines%20%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%3D-%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20If%20anyone%20other%20than%20Sven%20comes%20up%20with%20a%20good%20use%20for%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%0A%3E%20udeb%2C%20despite%20the%20problems%20described%20by%20others%20here%2C%20then%20I%20would%20like%0A%3E%20people%20to%20give%20it%20all%20due%20consideration.%20%20If%20the%20situation%20changes%20I%27m%0A%3E%20sure%20that%20the%20d-i%20team%20and%20if%20necessary%20the%20committee%20are%20capable%20of%0A%3E%20changing%20their%20minds.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Ian.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20Call%20for%20vote%3A%20gcc%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B.udeb&References=%3C87lkecdhvp.fsf%40rover.gag.com%3E%0A%20%3C18047.60981.731636.6081%40davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk%3E&In-Reply-To=%3C18047.60981.731636.6081%40davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk%3E">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=ian%40davenant.greenend.org.uk" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:32:53 +0100</div> </div> <pre class="message">Bdale Garbee writes ("Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb"): > I hereby call for an immediate TC vote on the question of whether a > libstdc++ udeb should be created to support the use of C++ in the > debian-installer environment, as requested by bug #367709. > > The udeb structure was invented for debian-installer, and to date > Debian has not supported the use of udebs for any other purpose. > In the discussion on this issue recorded in the bug log and on our > list, it seems clear that the d-i team does not want C++ support in > the installer environment, and the gcc maintainer is reluctant to > build and support udebs that the installer team doesn't need. The > question before us is therefore whether to support or overrule the > developer responsible for our gcc packaging, and the developers > involved in the debian-installer project. I'm reluctant to rule on this now in this way. Mainly, because in the future somebody (other than Sven) might come up with a good reason to do a libstdc++ udeb and then people will think we have forbidden it (or advised against it). I don't think we have really had a proper technical discussion about this - at least, not one that's finished. Until we have one, I don't think we should make this decision. That discussion would need the services of someone competent and useful to champion the `pro' arguments, but at the moment we don't have any such person available. So I would prefer my previous resolution instead of this one - but I didn't get enough support for that. Regarding this resolution, I'd like my vote as follows to be recorded although the outcome is no longer in doubt (and the committee seems to disagree with me). > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > [ 3 ] Choice 1: a libstdc++ udeb should be created as per bug #367709 > [ 2 ] Choice 2: a libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709 > [ 1 ] Choice 3: Further discussion > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- If anyone other than Sven comes up with a good use for a libstdc++ udeb, despite the problems described by others here, then I would like people to give it all due consideration. If the situation changes I'm sure that the d-i team and if necessary the committee are capable of changing their minds. Ian. </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="135"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=136">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=136">mbox</a>, <a href="#135">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="137"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=138">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=138">mbox</a>, <a href="#137">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="139"></a><a name="msg139"></a><a href="#139">Message #139</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=139">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=139">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?In-Reply-To=%3C20070625193448.GB14830%40mails.so.argh.org%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20Call%20for%20vote%3A%20gcc%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B.udeb&References=%3C87lkecdhvp.fsf%40rover.gag.com%3E%20%3C18047.60981.731636.6081%40davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk%3E%0A%20%3C20070625193448.GB14830%40mails.so.argh.org%3E&body=On%20Mon%2C%2025%20Jun%202007%2021%3A34%3A48%20%2B0200%20Andreas%20Barth%20%3Caba%40not.so.argh.org%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%2A%20Ian%20Jackson%20%28ian%40davenant.greenend.org.uk%29%20%5B070625%2019%3A03%5D%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20If%20anyone%20other%20than%20Sven%20comes%20up%20with%20a%20good%20use%20for%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%0A%3E%20%3E%20udeb%2C%20despite%20the%20problems%20described%20by%20others%20here%2C%20then%20I%20would%20like%0A%3E%20%3E%20people%20to%20give%20it%20all%20due%20consideration.%20%20If%20the%20situation%20changes%20I%27m%0A%3E%20%3E%20sure%20that%20the%20d-i%20team%20and%20if%20necessary%20the%20committee%20are%20capable%20of%0A%3E%20%3E%20changing%20their%20minds.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Well%2C%20if%20anyone%20would%20come%20up%20with%20a%20good%20use%20that%20might%20be%20enough%20for%0A%3E%20me%20to%20reconsider%20it%20really.%20%3A%29%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20For%20me%2C%20the%20issue%20is%3A%20We%20don%27t%20have%20a%20real%20use%20case%20up%20to%20now.%20Nobody%20is%0A%3E%20forbidden%20to%20generate%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B-udeb%2C%20and%20show%20a%20real%20use%20case.%0A%3E%20Integrating%20things%20on%20ftp.d.o%20isn%27t%20the%20first%20step%20in%20development%20these%0A%3E%20days.%20And%20if%20we%20have%20that%20case%2C%20one%20might%20want%20to%20convince%20the%0A%3E%20maintainer%20first.%20If%20all%20that%20fails%2C%20I%20don%27t%20see%20that%20one%20must%20not%20make%0A%3E%20another%20call%20to%20the%20technical%20committee.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20But%20it%20is%20not%20enough%20to%20get%20a%20overruling%20%28at%20least%20from%20me%29%20to%20point%20out%0A%3E%20theoretical%20advantages%20that%20nobody%20in%20Debian%20is%20intending%20to%20work%20on%20or%0A%3E%20use.%20And%20also%2C%20I%20doubt%20udebs%20are%20the%20intended%20thing%20for%20embedded%20-%20of%0A%3E%20course%2C%20if%20we%20get%20some%20real%20show%20cases%20from%20embedded%20people%2C%20that%20might%0A%3E%20make%20me%20change%20my%20opinion.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Regarding%20further%20discussion%3A%20I%20think%20this%20bug%20report%20has%20been%20open%20long%0A%3E%20enough%20now%2C%20and%20sometimes%20I%20prefer%20to%20get%20things%20done%20-%20we%20don%27t%20have%0A%3E%20%22nobody%20is%20allowed%20to%20open%20a%20case%20with%20udebs%20again%22%20as%20part%20of%20the%0A%3E%20resolution%2C%20but%20of%20course%20I%20would%20prefer%20if%20a%20new%20request%20would%20only%20be%0A%3E%20opened%20in%20case%20there%20is%20a%20proven%20usecase%2C%20i.e.%20the%20facts%20have%20changed.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Cheers%2C%0A%3E%20Andi%0A%3E%20--%20%0A%3E%20%20%20http%3A%2F%2Fhome.arcor.de%2Fandreas-barth%2F%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=aba%40not.so.argh.org" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Cc:</span> debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:34:48 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">* Ian Jackson (ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk) [070625 19:03]: > If anyone other than Sven comes up with a good use for a libstdc++ > udeb, despite the problems described by others here, then I would like > people to give it all due consideration. If the situation changes I'm > sure that the d-i team and if necessary the committee are capable of > changing their minds. Well, if anyone would come up with a good use that might be enough for me to reconsider it really. :) For me, the issue is: We don't have a real use case up to now. Nobody is forbidden to generate a libstdc++-udeb, and show a real use case. Integrating things on ftp.d.o isn't the first step in development these days. And if we have that case, one might want to convince the maintainer first. If all that fails, I don't see that one must not make another call to the technical committee. But it is not enough to get a overruling (at least from me) to point out theoretical advantages that nobody in Debian is intending to work on or use. And also, I doubt udebs are the intended thing for embedded - of course, if we get some real show cases from embedded people, that might make me change my opinion. Regarding further discussion: I think this bug report has been open long enough now, and sometimes I prefer to get things done - we don't have "nobody is allowed to open a case with udebs again" as part of the resolution, but of course I would prefer if a new request would only be opened in case there is a proven usecase, i.e. the facts have changed. Cheers, Andi -- <a href="http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/">http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/</a> </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="140"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=141">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=141">mbox</a>, <a href="#140">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="142"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=143">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=143">mbox</a>, <a href="#142">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="144"></a><a name="msg144"></a><a href="#144">Message #144</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=144">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=144">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?References=%3C87lkecdhvp.fsf%40rover.gag.com%3E%20%3C18047.60981.731636.6081%40davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk%3E%0A%20%3C20070625194330.GA10899%40scowler.net%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20Call%20for%20vote%3A%20gcc%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B.udeb&In-Reply-To=%3C20070625194330.GA10899%40scowler.net%3E&body=On%20Mon%2C%2025%20Jun%202007%2015%3A43%3A30%20-0400%20Clint%20Adams%20%3Cschizo%40debian.org%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20On%20Mon%2C%20Jun%2025%2C%202007%20at%2005%3A32%3A53PM%20%2B0100%2C%20Ian%20Jackson%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20If%20anyone%20other%20than%20Sven%20comes%20up%20with%20a%20good%20use%20for%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%0A%3E%20%3E%20udeb%2C%20despite%20the%20problems%20described%20by%20others%20here%2C%20then%20I%20would%20like%0A%3E%20%3E%20people%20to%20give%20it%20all%20due%20consideration.%20%20If%20the%20situation%20changes%20I%27m%0A%3E%20%3E%20sure%20that%20the%20d-i%20team%20and%20if%20necessary%20the%20committee%20are%20capable%20of%0A%3E%20%3E%20changing%20their%20minds.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Could%20someone%20assert%20why%20%22dependency%20of%20a%20potential%20partimage%20udeb%22%20is%0A%3E%20not%20a%20%22good%20use%22%3F%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=schizo%40debian.org" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Cc:</span> debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:43:30 -0400</div> </div> <pre class="message">On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:32:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > If anyone other than Sven comes up with a good use for a libstdc++ > udeb, despite the problems described by others here, then I would like > people to give it all due consideration. If the situation changes I'm > sure that the d-i team and if necessary the committee are capable of > changing their minds. Could someone assert why "dependency of a potential partimage udeb" is not a "good use"? </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="145"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=146">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=146">mbox</a>, <a href="#145">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="147"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=148">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=148">mbox</a>, <a href="#147">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="149"></a><a name="msg149"></a><a href="#149">Message #149</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=149">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=149">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%3A%20Call%20for%20vote%3A%20gcc%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B.udeb&References=%3C87lkecdhvp.fsf%40rover.gag.com%3E%20%3C18047.60981.731636.6081%40davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk%3E%20%3C20070625194330.GA10899%40scowler.net%3E%0A%20%3C20070625195135.GD14830%40mails.so.argh.org%3E&In-Reply-To=%3C20070625195135.GD14830%40mails.so.argh.org%3E&body=On%20Mon%2C%2025%20Jun%202007%2021%3A51%3A35%20%2B0200%20Andreas%20Barth%20%3Caba%40not.so.argh.org%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%2A%20Clint%20Adams%20%28schizo%40debian.org%29%20%5B070625%2021%3A43%5D%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20On%20Mon%2C%20Jun%2025%2C%202007%20at%2005%3A32%3A53PM%20%2B0100%2C%20Ian%20Jackson%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20If%20anyone%20other%20than%20Sven%20comes%20up%20with%20a%20good%20use%20for%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20udeb%2C%20despite%20the%20problems%20described%20by%20others%20here%2C%20then%20I%20would%20like%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20people%20to%20give%20it%20all%20due%20consideration.%20%20If%20the%20situation%20changes%20I%27m%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20sure%20that%20the%20d-i%20team%20and%20if%20necessary%20the%20committee%20are%20capable%20of%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20changing%20their%20minds.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Could%20someone%20assert%20why%20%22dependency%20of%20a%20potential%20partimage%20udeb%22%20is%0A%3E%20%3E%20not%20a%20%22good%20use%22%3F%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20What%20is%20the%20use%20case%3F%20Installer%3F%20-%20the%20installer%20people%20didn%27t%20want%20it.%0A%3E%20%28Apart%20from%20the%20word%20%22potential%22%29%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Cheers%2C%0A%3E%20Andi%0A%3E%20--%20%0A%3E%20%20%20http%3A%2F%2Fhome.arcor.de%2Fandreas-barth%2F%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=aba%40not.so.argh.org" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Cc:</span> Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>, debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:51:35 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">* Clint Adams (schizo@debian.org) [070625 21:43]: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:32:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > If anyone other than Sven comes up with a good use for a libstdc++ > > udeb, despite the problems described by others here, then I would like > > people to give it all due consideration. If the situation changes I'm > > sure that the d-i team and if necessary the committee are capable of > > changing their minds. > > Could someone assert why "dependency of a potential partimage udeb" is > not a "good use"? What is the use case? Installer? - the installer people didn't want it. (Apart from the word "potential") Cheers, Andi -- <a href="http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/">http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/</a> </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="150"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=151">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=151">mbox</a>, <a href="#150">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="152"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=153">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=153">mbox</a>, <a href="#152">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="154"></a><a name="msg154"></a><a href="#154">Message #154</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=154">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=154">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?References=%3C20070624055656.GA23076%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3Chandler.s.C.11826646475241.transcript%40bugs.debian.org%3E%20%3C20070624083547.GV14830%40mails.so.argh.org%3E%20%3C20070624090455.GA25238%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3C20070625193634.GE14145%40volo.donarmstrong.com%3E%0A%20%3C20070625204759.GB30265%40powerlinux.fr%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Processed%3A%20There%20is%20still%20no%20valid%20reason%20to%20close%20this%20bug.&In-Reply-To=%3C20070625204759.GB30265%40powerlinux.fr%3E&body=On%20Mon%2C%2025%20Jun%202007%2022%3A47%3A59%20%2B0200%20Sven%20Luther%20%3Csven%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20On%20Mon%2C%20Jun%2025%2C%202007%20at%2012%3A36%3A34PM%20-0700%2C%20Don%20Armstrong%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20On%20Sun%2C%2024%20Jun%202007%2C%20Sven%20Luther%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20On%20Sun%2C%20Jun%2024%2C%202007%20at%2010%3A35%3A48AM%20%2B0200%2C%20Andreas%20Barth%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20If%20you%20continue%20opening%20this%20bug%20report%2C%20I%27m%20have%20to%20ask%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20owner%40bugs%20to%20refuse%20you%20access%20to%20the%20control%20interface.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20Yeah%2C%20always%20has%20debian%20replied%20with%20menaces%20and%20exclusion%20to%20my%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20valid%20points.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20Remember%20your%20engagement%20to%20the%20social%20contract%2C%20%22WE%20WONT%20HIDE%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20PROBLEMS%22%2C%20which%20some%20may%20argue%20are%20related%20only%20to%20bug%20reports%2C%20but%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20if%20you%20start%20even%20shutting%20down%20the%20BTS%2C%20you%20won%27t%20have%20even%20this%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20excsue%20to%20violating%20the%20BTS.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20The%20bug%20above%20has%20had%20its%20state%20set%20by%20a%20decision%20of%20the%20CTTE.%20If%20you%0A%3E%20%3E%20disagree%20with%20their%20decision%2C%20then%20your%20only%20other%20recourse%20is%20to%0A%3E%20%3E%20either%20convince%20the%20CTTE%20to%20reconsider%20their%20decision%2C%20or%20override%20the%0A%3E%20%3E%20CTTE%20by%20GR.%20Neither%20course%20of%20action%20involves%20reopening%20this%20bug.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Don%2C%20...%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20How%20can%20i%20get%20the%20ctte%20to%20reconsider%20their%20decision%2C%20if%20they%20don%27t%20even%0A%3E%20speak%20to%20me%20%3F%20If%20they%20didn%27t%20even%20judge%20it%20necessary%20to%20inform%20me%20of%20the%0A%3E%20vote%20being%20going%20on%2C%20if%20they%20didn%27t%20give%20%3Be%20a%20chance%20to%20refresh%20the%0A%3E%20argumentation%20which%20was%20ignored%20since%20over%20a%20year%2C%20and%20the%20data%20they%0A%3E%20judged%20on%20was%20solely%20the%20words%20of%20the%20d-i%20team%2C%20who%20has%20clearly%20been%0A%3E%20shown%20as%20more%20than%20suspect%20and%20overshadowed%20by%20their%20hatred%20and%20vendetta%0A%3E%20against%20me.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20The%20bug%20will%20remain%20present%20in%20the%20bts%2C%20and%20can%20be%20unarchived%20at%20a%0A%3E%20%3E%20later%20date%20to%20allow%20this%20to%20occur.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Sure%2C%20but%20since%20i%20am%20the%20root%20of%20all%20evil%2C%20and%20nobody%20ever%20speaks%20to%20me%0A%3E%20except%20to%20threaten%20and%20menace%20me%2C%20this%20will%20do%20me%20much%20good.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Further%20attempts%20to%20modify%20the%20state%20of%20this%20bug%20contrary%20to%20the%0A%3E%20%3E%20maintainer%20or%20CTTE%27s%20wishes%20without%20the%20intervention%20of%20a%20GR%0A%3E%20%3E%20authorized%20by%20project%20developers%20will%20result%20in%20the%20restriction%20of%20the%0A%3E%20%3E%20control%20interface%20to%20the%20BTS.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Yes%2C%20right%2C%20so%2C%20i%20get%20threatened%2C%20and%20judged%20even%20before%20people%20read%20a%0A%3E%20word%20of%20what%20i%20write%2C%20it%20is%20only%20after%20hours%20of%20discussion%20that%20people%0A%3E%20will%20dare%20to%20admit%2C%20that%20maybe%2C%20just%20maybe%2C%20i%20might%20have%20some%20point%20of%0A%3E%20justification%20of%20my%20action%2C%20and%20in%20the%20meanwhile%2C%20folk%20bashed%20me%0A%3E%20unpunished%20on%20%23debian-devel%2C%20and%20i%20got%20loads%20of%20patronizing%20and%20outright%0A%3E%20insulting%20mails%20from%20asorted%20folks.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Don%2C%20the%20first%20bug%20closer%20was%20%3A%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%20Neither%20of%20these%20two%20Tech%20Committee%20requests%20remain%20relevant.%20%20I%20am%0A%3E%20%20%20therefore%20closing%20these%20bugs%20with%20no%20further%20action%20taken.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20To%20which%20idid%20what%20every%20sensible%20DD%20would%20have%20done%2C%20what%20would%20be%20the%0A%3E%20duty%20of%20every%20DD%20even%2C%20and%20reopened%20the%20bug.%20You%20would%20have%20done%20the%0A%3E%20same%20in%20my%20place.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20You%20know%20also%20well%20enough%2C%20that%20if%20anyone%20other%20than%20myself%20had%20done%0A%3E%20this%2C%20then%20you%20would%20not%20be%20so%20harsh.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20What%20is%20the%20matter%20with%20you%20guys%2C%20qare%20you%20so%20guilt%20ridden%20by%20how%20you%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=sven%40powerlinux.fr" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> Debian Bug Tracking System <owner@bugs.debian.org>, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>, 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Processed: There is still no valid reason to close this bug.</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:47:59 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 12:36:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 10:35:48AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > If you continue opening this bug report, I'm have to ask > > > owner@bugs to refuse you access to the control interface. > > > > Yeah, always has debian replied with menaces and exclusion to my > > valid points. > > > > Remember your engagement to the social contract, "WE WONT HIDE > > PROBLEMS", which some may argue are related only to bug reports, but > > if you start even shutting down the BTS, you won't have even this > > excsue to violating the BTS. > > The bug above has had its state set by a decision of the CTTE. If you > disagree with their decision, then your only other recourse is to > either convince the CTTE to reconsider their decision, or override the > CTTE by GR. Neither course of action involves reopening this bug. Don, ... How can i get the ctte to reconsider their decision, if they don't even speak to me ? If they didn't even judge it necessary to inform me of the vote being going on, if they didn't give ;e a chance to refresh the argumentation which was ignored since over a year, and the data they judged on was solely the words of the d-i team, who has clearly been shown as more than suspect and overshadowed by their hatred and vendetta against me. > The bug will remain present in the bts, and can be unarchived at a > later date to allow this to occur. Sure, but since i am the root of all evil, and nobody ever speaks to me except to threaten and menace me, this will do me much good. > Further attempts to modify the state of this bug contrary to the > maintainer or CTTE's wishes without the intervention of a GR > authorized by project developers will result in the restriction of the > control interface to the BTS. Yes, right, so, i get threatened, and judged even before people read a word of what i write, it is only after hours of discussion that people will dare to admit, that maybe, just maybe, i might have some point of justification of my action, and in the meanwhile, folk bashed me unpunished on #debian-devel, and i got loads of patronizing and outright insulting mails from asorted folks. Don, the first bug closer was : Neither of these two Tech Committee requests remain relevant. I am therefore closing these bugs with no further action taken. To which idid what every sensible DD would have done, what would be the duty of every DD even, and reopened the bug. You would have done the same in my place. You know also well enough, that if anyone other than myself had done this, then you would not be so harsh. What is the matter with you guys, qare you so guilt ridden by how you handled me that it so pains you to even try to speak to me before going balistic and resorting to the most heavy artillery to slap me down, while a few simple reasonable words would have been much more constructive ? Yes, as with the events leading to my expulsion, the events around this show again that debian is at fault in this whole mess, and is too arrogant to ever admit it misbheaved, while it lets everyone be insulting and caloumnious all over the mailing lists and irc channels. Sadly, Sven Luther </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="155"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=156">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=156">mbox</a>, <a href="#155">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="157"></a><a name="msg157"></a><a href="#157">Message #157</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=157">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=157">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?References=%3C20070624055656.GA23076%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3Chandler.s.C.11826646475241.transcript%40bugs.debian.org%3E%20%3C20070624083547.GV14830%40mails.so.argh.org%3E%20%3C20070624090455.GA25238%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3C20070625193634.GE14145%40volo.donarmstrong.com%3E%20%3C20070625204759.GB30265%40powerlinux.fr%3E%0A%20%3C20070625212335.GH14145%40volo.donarmstrong.com%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Processed%3A%20There%20is%20still%20no%20valid%20reason%20to%20close%20this%20bug.&In-Reply-To=%3C20070625212335.GH14145%40volo.donarmstrong.com%3E&body=On%20Mon%2C%2025%20Jun%202007%2014%3A23%3A35%20-0700%20Don%20Armstrong%20%3Cdon%40donarmstrong.com%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20On%20Mon%2C%2025%20Jun%202007%2C%20Sven%20Luther%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20Further%20attempts%20to%20modify%20the%20state%20of%20this%20bug%20contrary%20to%20the%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20maintainer%20or%20CTTE%27s%20wishes%20without%20the%20intervention%20of%20a%20GR%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20authorized%20by%20project%20developers%20will%20result%20in%20the%20restriction%20of%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20the%20control%20interface%20to%20the%20BTS.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Yes%2C%20right%2C%20so%2C%20i%20get%20threatened%2C%20and%20judged%20even%20before%20people%20read%20a%0A%3E%20%3E%20word%20of%20what%20i%20write%2C%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20It%20doesn%27t%20matter%20what%20you%20write%20or%20have%20written%20or%20who%20you%20are.%20The%0A%3E%20people%20who%20are%20allowed%20to%20have%20the%20final%20say%20on%20the%20state%20of%20a%20bug%20in%0A%3E%20a%20package%20is%20well%20defined%20and%20has%20been%20explained%20before.%20In%20this%20case%2C%0A%3E%20the%20CTTE%20has%20the%20final%20say%20on%20the%20state%20of%20this%20bug%2C%20irregardless%20of%0A%3E%20whather%20their%20decision%20is%20correct%20or%20incorrect.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20To%20which%20idid%20what%20every%20sensible%20DD%20would%20have%20done%2C%20what%20would%20be%0A%3E%20%3E%20the%20duty%20of%20every%20DD%20even%2C%20and%20reopened%20the%20bug.%20You%20would%20have%20done%0A%3E%20%3E%20the%20same%20in%20my%20place.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20The%20issue%20is%20not%20the%20original%20reopening%20of%20the%20bug%3B%20the%20issue%20is%20the%0A%3E%20continued%20reopening%20of%20the%20bug.%20Since%20the%20desire%20of%20the%20people%20in%0A%3E%20charge%20of%20the%20bugs%20in%20the%20ctte%20package%20has%20been%20made%20manifest%2C%20it%0A%3E%20should%20be%20respected.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20See%20http%3A%2F%2Flists.debian.org%2Fdebian-devel%2F2006%2F12%2Fmsg00303.html%20for%20a%0A%3E%20relatively%20recent%20explication%20of%20the%20control%40%20policy%2C%20and%20what%20will%20be%0A%3E%20done%20in%20cases%20of%20abuse.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20In%20any%20event%2C%20now%20that%20all%20parties%20to%20this%20bug%20are%20once%20again%20aware%20of%0A%3E%20the%20policy%2C%20I%20look%20forward%20to%20not%20having%20to%20address%20this%20issue%20again.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Don%20Armstrong%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20--%20%0A%3E%20%22There%20are%20two%20major%20products%20that%20come%20out%20of%20Berkeley%3A%20LSD%20and%20UNIX.%0A%3E%20We%20don%27t%20believe%20this%20to%20be%20a%20coincidence.%22%0A%3E%20%20--%20Jeremy%20S.%20Anderson%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20http%3A%2F%2Fwww.donarmstrong.com%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20http%3A%2F%2Frzlab.ucr.edu%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=don%40donarmstrong.com" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Cc:</span> Debian Bug Tracking System <owner@bugs.debian.org>, 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Processed: There is still no valid reason to close this bug.</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:23:35 -0700</div> </div> <pre class="message">On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Sven Luther wrote: > > Further attempts to modify the state of this bug contrary to the > > maintainer or CTTE's wishes without the intervention of a GR > > authorized by project developers will result in the restriction of > > the control interface to the BTS. > > Yes, right, so, i get threatened, and judged even before people read a > word of what i write, It doesn't matter what you write or have written or who you are. The people who are allowed to have the final say on the state of a bug in a package is well defined and has been explained before. In this case, the CTTE has the final say on the state of this bug, irregardless of whather their decision is correct or incorrect. > To which idid what every sensible DD would have done, what would be > the duty of every DD even, and reopened the bug. You would have done > the same in my place. The issue is not the original reopening of the bug; the issue is the continued reopening of the bug. Since the desire of the people in charge of the bugs in the ctte package has been made manifest, it should be respected. See <a href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/12/msg00303.html">http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/12/msg00303.html</a> for a relatively recent explication of the control@ policy, and what will be done in cases of abuse. In any event, now that all parties to this bug are once again aware of the policy, I look forward to not having to address this issue again. Don Armstrong -- "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." -- Jeremy S. Anderson <a href="http://www.donarmstrong.com">http://www.donarmstrong.com</a> <a href="http://rzlab.ucr.edu">http://rzlab.ucr.edu</a> </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="158"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=159">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=159">mbox</a>, <a href="#158">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="160"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=161">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=161">mbox</a>, <a href="#160">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="162"></a><a name="msg162"></a><a href="#162">Message #162</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=162">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=162">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?In-Reply-To=%3C20070625213629.GA31214%40powerlinux.fr%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Processed%3A%20There%20is%20still%20no%20valid%20reason%20to%20close%20this%20bug.&References=%3C20070624055656.GA23076%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3Chandler.s.C.11826646475241.transcript%40bugs.debian.org%3E%20%3C20070624083547.GV14830%40mails.so.argh.org%3E%20%3C20070624090455.GA25238%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3C20070625193634.GE14145%40volo.donarmstrong.com%3E%20%3C20070625204759.GB30265%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3C20070625212335.GH14145%40volo.donarmstrong.com%3E%0A%20%3C20070625213629.GA31214%40powerlinux.fr%3E&body=On%20Mon%2C%2025%20Jun%202007%2023%3A36%3A29%20%2B0200%20Sven%20Luther%20%3Csven%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20On%20Mon%2C%20Jun%2025%2C%202007%20at%2002%3A23%3A35PM%20-0700%2C%20Don%20Armstrong%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20On%20Mon%2C%2025%20Jun%202007%2C%20Sven%20Luther%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20Further%20attempts%20to%20modify%20the%20state%20of%20this%20bug%20contrary%20to%20the%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20maintainer%20or%20CTTE%27s%20wishes%20without%20the%20intervention%20of%20a%20GR%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20authorized%20by%20project%20developers%20will%20result%20in%20the%20restriction%20of%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20the%20control%20interface%20to%20the%20BTS.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20Yes%2C%20right%2C%20so%2C%20i%20get%20threatened%2C%20and%20judged%20even%20before%20people%20read%20a%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20word%20of%20what%20i%20write%2C%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20It%20doesn%27t%20matter%20what%20you%20write%20or%20have%20written%20or%20who%20you%20are.%20The%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20If%20thqt%20was%20true%2C%20then%20i%20would%20have%20no%20complaint%2C%20yet%20it%20is%20evident%20by%0A%3E%20bdale%20original%20bug%20closer%20that%20this%20is%20not%20the%20case.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20people%20who%20are%20allowed%20to%20have%20the%20final%20say%20on%20the%20state%20of%20a%20bug%20in%0A%3E%20%3E%20a%20package%20is%20well%20defined%20and%20has%20been%20explained%20before.%20In%20this%20case%2C%0A%3E%20%3E%20the%20CTTE%20has%20the%20final%20say%20on%20the%20state%20of%20this%20bug%2C%20irregardless%20of%0A%3E%20%3E%20whather%20their%20decision%20is%20correct%20or%20incorrect.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Ok%2C%20i%20have%20a%20problem%20with%20that%2C%20and%20this%20is%20why%20i%20was%20espulsed%20from%0A%3E%20debian.%20I%20have%20trouble%20accepting%20unfair%20decisions%2C%20based%20on%20personal%0A%3E%20feud%2C%20or%20with%20only%20the%20slightest%20of%20technical%20content.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20To%20which%20idid%20what%20every%20sensible%20DD%20would%20have%20done%2C%20what%20would%20be%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20the%20duty%20of%20every%20DD%20even%2C%20and%20reopened%20the%20bug.%20You%20would%20have%20done%0A%3E%20%3E%20%3E%20the%20same%20in%20my%20place.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20The%20issue%20is%20not%20the%20original%20reopening%20of%20the%20bug%3B%20the%20issue%20is%20the%0A%3E%20%3E%20continued%20reopening%20of%20the%20bug.%20Since%20the%20desire%20of%20the%20people%20in%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Oh%2C%20come%20on%20please%2C%20you%20know%20that%20you%20guys%20have%20been%20losing%20much%20more%0A%3E%20time%20on%20this%20issue%20than%20anything%20i%20could%20have%20done.%20I%20have%20not%20touched%0A%3E%20the%20bug%20since%20i%20spoke%20with%20andreas%20barth%20on%20irc%2C%20and%20yet%20you%20all%20seem%20so%0A%3E%20intent%20of%20continuing%20to%20harrass%20me%20with%20this.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20On%20the%20same%20way%2C%20there%20is%20no%20response%20to%20the%20technical%20issues%20i%0A%3E%20mentioned%2C%20which%20cast%20a%20real%20suspision%20on%20the%20honestity%20of%20your%0A%3E%20intentions.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Please%20stop%20being%20assholes%20who%20only%20follow%20the%20rules%2C%20recognize%20that%20the%0A%3E%20decision%20fo%20the%20tech%20committee%20didn%27t%20take%20into%20account%20more%20recent%0A%3E%20facts%2C%20and%20was%20hurried%20to%20get%20the%20issue%20quickly%20forgotten%2C%20and%20respond%0A%3E%20to%20my%20technical%20points.%20Is%20this%20so%20difficult%20to%20ask%2C%20that%20you%20have%20to%20go%0A%3E%20into%20threatening%2C%20and%20day%20long%20exchange%20of%20email%20terrorism%20%3F%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20charge%20of%20the%20bugs%20in%20the%20ctte%20package%20has%20been%20made%20manifest%2C%20it%0A%3E%20%3E%20should%20be%20respected.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20See%20http%3A%2F%2Flists.debian.org%2Fdebian-devel%2F2006%2F12%2Fmsg00303.html%20for%20a%0A%3E%20%3E%20relatively%20recent%20explication%20of%20the%20control%40%20policy%2C%20and%20what%20will%20be%0A%3E%20%3E%20done%20in%20cases%20of%20abuse.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20What%20abuse%20%3F%20You%20just%20make%20up%20random%20rules%2C%20which%20you%20modify%20at%20will%0A%3E%20like%20the%20DAMS%20have%20done%20in%20the%20expulsion%20procedure%2C%20and%20then%20read%20out%0A%3E%20the%20sentence%2C%20without%20even%20trying%20to%20honestly%20discuss%20the%20matter.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Again%20you%20showed%20that%20you%20are%20not%20interested%20in%20human%20and%20decent%20and%0A%3E%20honourable%20behaviour%2C%20but%20in%20going%20after%20me%20and%20punishing%20me%20for%20not%0A%3E%20being%20subservient%20enough.%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=sven%40powerlinux.fr" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> Debian Bug Tracking System <owner@bugs.debian.org>, 367709@bugs.debian.org, Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Processed: There is still no valid reason to close this bug.</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:36:29 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 02:23:35PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Further attempts to modify the state of this bug contrary to the > > > maintainer or CTTE's wishes without the intervention of a GR > > > authorized by project developers will result in the restriction of > > > the control interface to the BTS. > > > > Yes, right, so, i get threatened, and judged even before people read a > > word of what i write, > > It doesn't matter what you write or have written or who you are. The If thqt was true, then i would have no complaint, yet it is evident by bdale original bug closer that this is not the case. > people who are allowed to have the final say on the state of a bug in > a package is well defined and has been explained before. In this case, > the CTTE has the final say on the state of this bug, irregardless of > whather their decision is correct or incorrect. Ok, i have a problem with that, and this is why i was espulsed from debian. I have trouble accepting unfair decisions, based on personal feud, or with only the slightest of technical content. > > To which idid what every sensible DD would have done, what would be > > the duty of every DD even, and reopened the bug. You would have done > > the same in my place. > > The issue is not the original reopening of the bug; the issue is the > continued reopening of the bug. Since the desire of the people in Oh, come on please, you know that you guys have been losing much more time on this issue than anything i could have done. I have not touched the bug since i spoke with andreas barth on irc, and yet you all seem so intent of continuing to harrass me with this. On the same way, there is no response to the technical issues i mentioned, which cast a real suspision on the honestity of your intentions. Please stop being assholes who only follow the rules, recognize that the decision fo the tech committee didn't take into account more recent facts, and was hurried to get the issue quickly forgotten, and respond to my technical points. Is this so difficult to ask, that you have to go into threatening, and day long exchange of email terrorism ? > charge of the bugs in the ctte package has been made manifest, it > should be respected. > > See <a href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/12/msg00303.html">http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/12/msg00303.html</a> for a > relatively recent explication of the control@ policy, and what will be > done in cases of abuse. What abuse ? You just make up random rules, which you modify at will like the DAMS have done in the expulsion procedure, and then read out the sentence, without even trying to honestly discuss the matter. Again you showed that you are not interested in human and decent and honourable behaviour, but in going after me and punishing me for not being subservient enough. > In any event, now that all parties to this bug are once again aware of > the policy, I look forward to not having to address this issue again. Well, you bring it up again and again. I repeat, i have not touched this bug since i spoke to Andreas on irc (in which he was not really very open and curteous, but rather threatening), and the only thing i have done since is respond to the continuous menace and harrasment of you guys. If you had taken even a fraction of the effort you lost on this, not counting the time you made me loss, reading the technical argumentation i provided in my last mail to the bug report, it would have been much more constructive. But no, you prefer showing your might and bureaucratic harrasment, and bending rules to your advantage, and in general bullying the feeble and hurt. So glorious a way to solve problem, no wonder both ian and anthony tried to create a social comitte able to deal punishements, but not solve issues. Sad and disgusted, Sven Luther </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="163"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=164">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=164">mbox</a>, <a href="#163">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="165"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=166">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=166">mbox</a>, <a href="#165">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="167"></a><a name="msg167"></a><a href="#167">Message #167</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=167">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=167">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?body=On%20Tue%2C%2026%20Jun%202007%2008%3A14%3A11%20%2B0200%20Sven%20Luther%20%3Csven%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20Hi%20Andreas%2C%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20First%2C%20i%20think%20it%20would%20be%20courteous%20of%20your%20part%20to%20mail%0A%3E%20%3Cbug%3E-submitter%2C%20or%20CC%20me%20on%20activity%20of%20this%20bug.%20Probably%20better%20to%20CC%0A%3E%20me%2C%20since%20i%20don%27t%20remember%20if%20i%20submitted%20the%20bug%20with%20my%20%40debian%0A%3E%20affress%2C%20which%20naturally%20is%20no%20a%20dead%20one%20%28still%20disgusted%20about%20this%0A%3E%20one%2C%20a%20one%20way%20redirection%20would%20have%20been%20much%20more%20logical%20and%20hurt%0A%3E%20nobody%2C%20but%20hey%20...%29.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Just%20a%20few%20points%20%3A%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%201%29%20at%20the%20time%20this%20was%20discussed%2C%20it%20was%20clear%20that%20any%20patch%20would%0A%3E%20%20%20have%20been%20refused%2C%20not%20out%20of%20technical%20ground%2C%20but%20as%20animosity%0A%3E%20%20%20against%20me.%20As%20thus%20i%20was%20very%20wary%20to%20do%20even%20a%20single%20bit%20of%20work%0A%3E%20%20%20which%20would%20be%20wasted%20afterward.%20Just%20look%20at%20all%20the%20work%20Xavier%0A%3E%20%20%20Oswald%20did%20in%20reimplementing%20gparted%20in%20C%20at%20the%20demand%20of%20the%20d-i%0A%3E%20%20%20team%2C%20and%20look%20what%20has%20changed%20in%20the%20d-i%20partitioner%20since%20then.%0A%3E%20%20%20Frans%20even%20threatened%20Eddy%20Petrisor%20when%20he%20dared%20make%20some%20critics.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%202%29%20using%20.udebs%20for%20embedded%20work%20was%20considered%20around%20that%20time.%0A%3E%20%20%20Raphael%20Hertzog%20even%20used%20it%20in%20a%20paying%20job%20on%20some%20semi-embedded%0A%3E%20%20%20device%20years%20ago%2C%20and%20it%20makes%20perfect%20logical%20sense.%20Ideally%2C%20as%0A%3E%20%20%20Anthony%20said%2C%20there%20would%20be%20a%20spliting%20of%20the%20.udeb%20archive%2C%20with%20the%0A%3E%20%20%20support%20libraries%20on%20one%20side%20%28libc%2C%20libparted%2C%20eject%20and%20so%20on%29%2C%20and%0A%3E%20%20%20the%20d-i%20specific%20parts%20in%20the%20d-i%20repository.%20But%20you%20cannot%20fault%20the%0A%3E%20%20%20embdeed%20folk%20to%20not%20have%20gone%20this%20way%2C%20given%20the%20reaction%20of%20the%20d-i%0A%3E%20%20%20folk%2C%20who%20fought%20a%20war%20of%20control%20over%20the%20.udebs%2C%20and%20which%20is%20what%0A%3E%20%20%20started%20the%20mess%20i%20was%20involved%20in%2C%20because%20they%20didn%27t%20want%20to%0A%3E%20%20%20relinquish%20control%20over%20the%20kernel%20.udebs%2C%20which%20have%20their%20much%20more%0A%3E%20%20%20logical%20place%20in%20the%20kernel%20team.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%203%29%20about%20the%20bug%20open%20status%2C%20first%20i%20have%20not%20touched%20it%20since%20you%0A%3E%20%20%20spoke%20%28err%20threatened%29%20to%20me%20the%20other%20day%2C%20and%20it%20is%20not%20my%20fault%0A%3E%20%20%20that%20my%20mails%20seem%20to%20reach%20the%20BTS%20with%20an%20important%20lag%20%28near%20a%20full%0A%3E%20%20%2024%20hours%29.%20I%20noticed%20that%20the%20technical%20committee%20has%20not%20judged%20on%0A%3E%20%20%20recent%20facts%2C%20the%20bug%20was%20untouched%20since%20over%20a%20year%2C%20and%20maybe%20you%0A%3E%20%20%20could%20have%20shown%20concern%20about%20not%20letting%20a%20bug%20report%20open%20so%20long%0A%3E%20%20%20earlier%2C%20and%20the%20few%20mails%20i%20saw%20of%20the%20TC%20where%20not%20really%20examining%0A%3E%20%20%20technical%20points%2C%20but%20mostly%20based%20on%20the%20opinion%20of%20the%20d-i%20team%20of%0A%3E%20%20%20back%20then%2C%20which%20nobody%20doubts%20anymore%20that%20it%20has%20been%20highly%20dubious%0A%3E%20%20%20in%20his%20impartiality%20and%20technical%20merit.%20As%20thus%2C%20if%20you%20want%20to%20close%0A%3E%20%20%20it%2C%20fine%20with%20me%2C%20but%20i%20should%20not%20learn%20about%20it%20in%20the%20bug%20closer%2C%0A%3E%20%20%20and%20you%20should%20at%20least%20try%20to%20address%20the%20technical%20points%20i%20raised.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%204%29%20as%20a%20proven%20use-case%2C%20i%20defy%20you%20to%20show%20me%20that%20a%20partimage%0A%3E%20%20%20capability%20in%20d-i%20or%20in%20some%20non-d-i%20splitoff%2C%20and%20thus%20easy%20and%20nice%0A%3E%20%20%20ghost%20like%20functionality%20is%20not%20useful.%20Davide%20and%20Attilio%2C%20the%20main%0A%3E%20%20%20g-i%20developpers%2C%20told%20me%20at%20extremadura%20how%20important%20and%20interesting%0A%3E%20%20%20this%20would%20have%20been%2C%20and%20when%20the%20issue%20was%20explained%20%28not%20by%20me%0A%3E%20%20%20because%20i%20am%20banned%20from%20almost%20everywhere%29%2C%20many%20people%20mentioned%20the%0A%3E%20%20%20interest.%20The%20comparative%20cost%20of%20having%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%2C%20especially%0A%3E%20%20%20since%20at%20that%20point%20%28more%20than%20a%20year%20and%20a%20half%20ago%29%20we%20proposed%20to%0A%3E%20%20%20provide%20the%20patch%20for%20it%2C%20and%20the%20other%20c%2B%2B%20library%20maintainers%20which%0A%3E%20%20%20where%20needed%20for%20gparted%20where%20already%20ready%20to%20add%20the%20patches.%20So%2C%0A%3E%20%20%20the%20comparative%20cost%20of%20having%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20is%20evidently%20low.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%205%29%20This%20is%20d-i%20development%2C%20where%20the%20build%20system%20and%20the%20fact%20that%0A%3E%20%20%20we%20use%20mostly%20netbooting%20for%20testing%2C%20and%20the%20fact%20that%20d-i%20supports%0A%3E%20%20%20only%20a%20single%20.udeb%20source%2C%20makes%20playing%20with%20out-of-debian%20packages%0A%3E%20%20%20a%20real%20pain.%0A&subject=Re%3A%20Reply%20to%20Andreas%2C%20...&References=%3C20070626061411.GA4327%40powerlinux.fr%3E&In-Reply-To=%3C20070626061411.GA4327%40powerlinux.fr%3E">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=sven%40powerlinux.fr" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> 367709@bugs.debian.org, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Reply to Andreas, ...</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:14:11 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">Hi Andreas, First, i think it would be courteous of your part to mail <bug>-submitter, or CC me on activity of this bug. Probably better to CC me, since i don't remember if i submitted the bug with my @debian affress, which naturally is no a dead one (still disgusted about this one, a one way redirection would have been much more logical and hurt nobody, but hey ...). Just a few points : 1) at the time this was discussed, it was clear that any patch would have been refused, not out of technical ground, but as animosity against me. As thus i was very wary to do even a single bit of work which would be wasted afterward. Just look at all the work Xavier Oswald did in reimplementing gparted in C at the demand of the d-i team, and look what has changed in the d-i partitioner since then. Frans even threatened Eddy Petrisor when he dared make some critics. 2) using .udebs for embedded work was considered around that time. Raphael Hertzog even used it in a paying job on some semi-embedded device years ago, and it makes perfect logical sense. Ideally, as Anthony said, there would be a spliting of the .udeb archive, with the support libraries on one side (libc, libparted, eject and so on), and the d-i specific parts in the d-i repository. But you cannot fault the embdeed folk to not have gone this way, given the reaction of the d-i folk, who fought a war of control over the .udebs, and which is what started the mess i was involved in, because they didn't want to relinquish control over the kernel .udebs, which have their much more logical place in the kernel team. 3) about the bug open status, first i have not touched it since you spoke (err threatened) to me the other day, and it is not my fault that my mails seem to reach the BTS with an important lag (near a full 24 hours). I noticed that the technical committee has not judged on recent facts, the bug was untouched since over a year, and maybe you could have shown concern about not letting a bug report open so long earlier, and the few mails i saw of the TC where not really examining technical points, but mostly based on the opinion of the d-i team of back then, which nobody doubts anymore that it has been highly dubious in his impartiality and technical merit. As thus, if you want to close it, fine with me, but i should not learn about it in the bug closer, and you should at least try to address the technical points i raised. 4) as a proven use-case, i defy you to show me that a partimage capability in d-i or in some non-d-i splitoff, and thus easy and nice ghost like functionality is not useful. Davide and Attilio, the main g-i developpers, told me at extremadura how important and interesting this would have been, and when the issue was explained (not by me because i am banned from almost everywhere), many people mentioned the interest. The comparative cost of having a libstdc++ .udeb, especially since at that point (more than a year and a half ago) we proposed to provide the patch for it, and the other c++ library maintainers which where needed for gparted where already ready to add the patches. So, the comparative cost of having a libstdc++ .udeb is evidently low. 5) This is d-i development, where the build system and the fact that we use mostly netbooting for testing, and the fact that d-i supports only a single .udeb source, makes playing with out-of-debian packages a real pain. 6) from ian's word, it is clear that the request was dismissed because i proposed it, and if anyone else but me showed interest, they would give the issue all due consideration. This only reinforces my initial assesment that the TC did not judge on this on technical reasons, based on real facts. Furthermore, only two of the 4 votes bdale mentioned reached the bug report, so it appears to me that the committee did not act transparently in this, or that some mails got lost. Again, what would it have cost to speak to me about this and ask for a renewed argumentation for this stale bug ? It is not my fault you didn't handle it in a timely fashion, you have only yourself to blame for that. Sadly, Sven Luther </pre> <div class="msgreceived"><hr><p> <a name="168"></a> <strong>Reply sent</strong> to <code>Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk></code>:<br> You have taken responsibility. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=169">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=169">mbox</a>, <a href="#168">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="170"></a> <strong>Notification sent</strong> to <code>Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr></code>:<br> Bug acknowledged by developer. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=171">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=171">mbox</a>, <a href="#170">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="172"></a><a name="msg172"></a><a href="#172">Message #172</a> received at 367709-done@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=172">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=172">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?body=On%20Tue%2C%2026%20Jun%202007%2010%3A01%3A04%20%2B0100%20Ian%20Jackson%20%3Cian%40davenant.greenend.org.uk%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20As%20previously%20discussed%2C%20the%20state%20of%20this%20bug%20has%20been%20decided%20by%20the%0A%3E%20appropriate%20people%3A%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20The%20relevant%20maintainers%20decided%20according%20to%203.1%281%29%20that%20they%20did%20not%0A%3E%20agree%20with%20the%20request.%20%20Technical%20Committee%20have%20decided%20not%20to%0A%3E%20exercise%20their%20power%20in%206.1%284%29%20to%20overrule%20this%20decision.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20I%20am%20therefore%20closing%20this%20bug%20report.%20%20Please%20do%20not%20reopen%20it.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Ian.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A&References=%3C18048.54736.729549.700963%40davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Closing%20this%20one%20for%20the%20last%20time&In-Reply-To=%3C18048.54736.729549.700963%40davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk%3E">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=ian%40davenant.greenend.org.uk" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>, 367709-done@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Closing this one for the last time</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:01:04 +0100</div> </div> <pre class="message">As previously discussed, the state of this bug has been decided by the appropriate people: The relevant maintainers decided according to 3.1(1) that they did not agree with the request. Technical Committee have decided not to exercise their power in 6.1(4) to overrule this decision. I am therefore closing this bug report. Please do not reopen it. Ian. </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="173"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=174">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=174">mbox</a>, <a href="#173">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="175"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=176">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=176">mbox</a>, <a href="#175">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="177"></a><a name="msg177"></a><a href="#177">Message #177</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=177">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=177">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?In-Reply-To=%3C20070626093721.GA6898%40powerlinux.fr%3E&subject=Re%3A%20Bug%23367709%20closed%20by%20Ian%20Jackson%20%3Cian%40davenant.greenend.org.uk%3E%20%28Closing%20this%20one%20for%20the%20last%20time%29&References=%3C18048.54736.729549.700963%40davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk%3E%20%3C20060517195151.GA7228%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20%3Chandler.367709.D367709.118284847018938.notifdone%40bugs.debian.org%3E%0A%20%3C20070626093721.GA6898%40powerlinux.fr%3E&body=On%20Tue%2C%2026%20Jun%202007%2011%3A37%3A21%20%2B0200%20Sven%20Luther%20%3Csven%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20On%20Tue%2C%20Jun%2026%2C%202007%20at%2009%3A03%3A02AM%20%2B0000%2C%20Debian%20Bug%20Tracking%20System%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20This%20is%20an%20automatic%20notification%20regarding%20your%20Bug%20report%0A%3E%20%3E%20%23367709%3A%20requesting%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20in%20order%20to%20produce%20c%2B%2B%20based%20images%20based%20on%20d-i%20technology%20%28but%20not%20d-i%29.%2C%0A%3E%20%3E%20which%20was%20filed%20against%20the%20tech-ctte%20package.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20It%20has%20been%20closed%20by%20Ian%20Jackson%20%3Cian%40davenant.greenend.org.uk%3E.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Their%20explanation%20is%20attached%20below.%20%20If%20this%20explanation%20is%0A%3E%20%3E%20unsatisfactory%20and%20you%20have%20not%20received%20a%20better%20one%20in%20a%20separate%0A%3E%20%3E%20message%20then%20please%20contact%20Ian%20Jackson%20%3Cian%40davenant.greenend.org.uk%3E%20by%20replying%0A%3E%20%3E%20to%20this%20email.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20Debian%20bug%20tracking%20system%20administrator%0A%3E%20%3E%20%28administrator%2C%20Debian%20Bugs%20database%29%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------%0A%3E%20%3E%20Orange%20vous%20informe%20que%20cet%20%20e-mail%20a%20ete%20controle%20par%20l%27anti-virus%20mail.%0A%3E%20%3E%20Aucun%20virus%20connu%20a%20ce%20jour%20par%20nos%20services%20n%27a%20ete%20detecte.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20From%3A%20Ian%20Jackson%20%3Cian%40davenant.greenend.org.uk%3E%0A%3E%20%3E%20Message-ID%3A%20%3C18048.54736.729549.700963%40davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk%3E%0A%3E%20%3E%20Date%3A%20Tue%2C%2026%20Jun%202007%2010%3A01%3A04%20%2B0100%0A%3E%20%3E%20To%3A%20Sven%20Luther%20%3Csven%40powerlinux.fr%3E%2C%20367709-done%40bugs.debian.org%0A%3E%20%3E%20Subject%3A%20Closing%20this%20one%20for%20the%20last%20time%0A%3E%20%3E%20X-Mailer%3A%20VM%207.03%20under%20Emacs%2019.34.1%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20As%20previously%20discussed%2C%20the%20state%20of%20this%20bug%20has%20been%20decided%20by%20the%0A%3E%20%3E%20appropriate%20people%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20The%20relevant%20maintainers%20decided%20according%20to%203.1%281%29%20that%20they%20did%20not%0A%3E%20%3E%20agree%20with%20the%20request.%20%20Technical%20Committee%20have%20decided%20not%20to%0A%3E%20%3E%20exercise%20their%20power%20in%206.1%284%29%20to%20overrule%20this%20decision.%0A%3E%20%3E%20%0A%3E%20%3E%20I%20am%20therefore%20closing%20this%20bug%20report.%20%20Please%20do%20not%20reopen%20it.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Fine%2C%20i%20will%20not%20contest%20this%2C%20but%20it%20is%20still%20regretable%20for%20the%0A%3E%20credibility%20of%20the%20technical%20committee%20that%20%3A%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%201%29%20you%20did%20not%20chose%20to%20inform%20that%20you%20where%20going%20to%20have%20a%20vote%2C%0A%3E%20%20%20and%20judged%20on%20stale%20information%20dating%20from%20last%20year.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%20%202%29%20you%20responded%20to%20none%20of%20the%20technical%20points%20i%20raised%20in%20your%0A%3E%20%20%20hurry%20to%20burry%20this%20request.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20so%2C%20as%20with%20the%20rest%20of%20the%20debian%20governance%2C%20all%20those%20rules%20and%0A%3E%20procedure%20are%20nothing%20but%20justification%20for%20decisions%20taken%20by%20the%20whim%0A%3E%20of%20a%20select%20few%20without%20any%20semblance%20of%20fairness%20and%20technical%0A%3E%20motivation.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Sad%20to%20see%20debian%20fall%20so%20low%2C%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Sven%20Luther%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=sven%40powerlinux.fr" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Cc:</span> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> Re: Bug#367709 closed by Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> (Closing this one for the last time)</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:37:21 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:03:02AM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > #367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i)., > which was filed against the tech-ctte package. > > It has been closed by Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>. > > Their explanation is attached below. If this explanation is > unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate > message then please contact Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> by replying > to this email. > > Debian bug tracking system administrator > (administrator, Debian Bugs database) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Orange vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. > Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte. > > From: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> > Message-ID: <18048.54736.729549.700963@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk> > Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:01:04 +0100 > To: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>, 367709-done@bugs.debian.org > Subject: Closing this one for the last time > X-Mailer: VM 7.03 under Emacs 19.34.1 > > As previously discussed, the state of this bug has been decided by the > appropriate people: > > The relevant maintainers decided according to 3.1(1) that they did not > agree with the request. Technical Committee have decided not to > exercise their power in 6.1(4) to overrule this decision. > > I am therefore closing this bug report. Please do not reopen it. Fine, i will not contest this, but it is still regretable for the credibility of the technical committee that : 1) you did not chose to inform that you where going to have a vote, and judged on stale information dating from last year. 2) you responded to none of the technical points i raised in your hurry to burry this request. so, as with the rest of the debian governance, all those rules and procedure are nothing but justification for decisions taken by the whim of a select few without any semblance of fairness and technical motivation. Sad to see debian fall so low, Sven Luther </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="178"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=179">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=179">mbox</a>, <a href="#178">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="180"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=181">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=181">mbox</a>, <a href="#180">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="182"></a><a name="msg182"></a><a href="#182">Message #182</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=182">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=182">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?References=%3C20070716084640.GB27006%40powerlinux.fr%3E&subject=Re%3A%20%5Belendil%40planet.nl%3A%20Requesting%20new%20udebs%20%28was%3A%20Bug%23430023%3A%20please%20add%20gnu-fdisk-udeb%20and%20gnu-cfdisk-udeb%29%5D&In-Reply-To=%3C20070716084640.GB27006%40powerlinux.fr%3E&body=On%20Mon%2C%2016%20Jul%202007%2010%3A46%3A40%20%2B0200%20Sven%20Luther%20%3Csven%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20Here%2C%20you%20can%20see%20again%20the%20result%20of%20your%20decision%2C%20and%20the%20stranghold%0A%3E%20frans%20pop%20has%20over%20the%20.udebs.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20This%20is%20not%20something%20which%20you%20should%20have%20encouraged%2C%20as%20it%20stiffles%0A%3E%20progress%20and%20innovation.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20And%20i%20was%20in%20absolute%20no%20way%20involved%20in%20the%20below%2C%20but%20let%20it%20not%20be%0A%3E%20said%20that%20i%20am%20the%20only%20one%20seeing%20problems%20with%20Frans%20Pop%2C%20as%20was%20said.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Really%20sad%20that%20debian%20prefered%20to%20support%20a%20private%20vendetta%20over%0A%3E%20technical%20excellence%20...%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Sven%20Luther%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20-----%20Forwarded%20message%20from%20Frans%20Pop%20%3Celendil%40planet.nl%3E%20-----%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20From%3A%20Frans%20Pop%20%3Celendil%40planet.nl%3E%0A%3E%20To%3A%20debian-boot%40lists.debian.org%0A%3E%20Subject%3A%20Requesting%20new%20udebs%20%28was%3A%20Bug%23430023%3A%20please%20add%20gnu-fdisk-udeb%20and%20gnu-cfdisk-udeb%29%0A%3E%20Date%3A%20Fri%2C%2013%20Jul%202007%2002%3A23%3A55%20%2B0200%0A%3E%20Message-Id%3A%20%3C200707130223.56146.elendil%40planet.nl%3E%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20On%20Friday%2013%20July%202007%2001%3A48%2C%20Frans%20Pop%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20%3E%20I%20was%20quite%20surprised%20to%20see%20the%20two%20new%20udebs%20from%20your%20source%20package%0A%3E%20%3E%20gnu-fdisk%20appear.%20Mainly%20because%20there%20has%20not%20been%20any%20discussion%20by%0A%3E%20%3E%20Robert%20about%20adding%20them%20with%20the%20rest%20of%20the%20D-I%20team%20and%20the%20D-I%0A%3E%20%3E%20release%20managers%20in%20particular.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Let%20me%20make%20this%20clear%20once%20and%20for%20all%3A%20there%20should%20be%20NO%20requests%20filed%20%0A%3E%20for%20adding%20new%20udebs%20to%20existing%20Debian%20packages%20without%20discussing%20it%20%0A%3E%20first%20on%20the%20debian-boot%20mailing%20list%20%28which%20also%20means%20that%20only%20asking%20%0A%3E%20on%20IRC%20is%20not%20enough%29.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20This%20also%20goes%20for%20udebs%20that%20are%20not%20intended%20to%20be%20used%20in%20Debian%20%0A%3E%20Installer%20itself%2C%20but%20are%20e.g.%20for%20debian-edu%20or%20live%20CD%20or%20similar.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20The%20only%20exception%20is%20if%20a%20D-I%20porter%20needs%20an%20%2Aarchitecture%20specific%2A%20%0A%3E%20udeb%2C%20but%20even%20then%20at%20least%20announcing%20it%20on%20the%20list%20is%20very%20much%20%0A%3E%20appreciated.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20The%20main%20reasons%20for%20this%20are%3A%0A%3E%20-%20the%20size%20of%20installation%20images%20should%20not%20be%20increased%20without%0A%3E%20%20%20discussion%0A%3E%20-%20every%20new%20udeb%20may%20need%20to%20be%20excluded%20in%20debian-cd%0A%3E%20-%20migration%20for%20all%20udebs%20needs%20to%20be%20consciously%20managed%20%28which%20mostly%0A%3E%20%20%20falls%20to%20the%20D-I%20release%20manager%29%0A%3E%20-%20because%20of%20the%20previous%20point%2C%20having%20a%20udeb%20is%20not%20always%20enjoyable%0A%3E%20%20%20for%20maintainers%20of%20regular%20packages%20because%20their%20packages%20may%20get%0A%3E%20%20%20blocked%20from%20transitioning%20to%20testing%3B%20we%20should%20therefore%20not%20have%0A%3E%20%20%20unused%20or%20trivial%20udebs%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Remember%2C%20and%20this%20was%20recently%20affirmed%20by%20the%20Technical%20Committee%2C%20that%20%0A%3E%20the%20debian-installer%20section%20of%20the%20repository%20is%20%22owned%22%20by%20the%20D-I%20%0A%3E%20team.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Adding%20new%20udebs%20is%20a%20fairly%20major%20change.%20It%20seems%20only%20reasonable%20that%20%0A%3E%20people%20inform%2Fconsult%20their%20colleagues%20in%20the%20team%20before%20requesting%20%0A%3E%20them.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20We%20are%20of%20course%20work%20willing%20to%20work%20with%20anybody%20who%20wants%20to%20extend%20the%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=sven%40powerlinux.fr" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> [elendil@planet.nl: Requesting new udebs (was: Bug#430023: please add gnu-fdisk-udeb and gnu-cfdisk-udeb)]</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:46:40 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">Here, you can see again the result of your decision, and the stranghold frans pop has over the .udebs. This is not something which you should have encouraged, as it stiffles progress and innovation. And i was in absolute no way involved in the below, but let it not be said that i am the only one seeing problems with Frans Pop, as was said. Really sad that debian prefered to support a private vendetta over technical excellence ... Sven Luther ----- Forwarded message from Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> ----- From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> To: debian-boot@lists.debian.org Subject: Requesting new udebs (was: Bug#430023: please add gnu-fdisk-udeb and gnu-cfdisk-udeb) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:23:55 +0200 Message-Id: <200707130223.56146.elendil@planet.nl> On Friday 13 July 2007 01:48, Frans Pop wrote: > I was quite surprised to see the two new udebs from your source package > gnu-fdisk appear. Mainly because there has not been any discussion by > Robert about adding them with the rest of the D-I team and the D-I > release managers in particular. Let me make this clear once and for all: there should be NO requests filed for adding new udebs to existing Debian packages without discussing it first on the debian-boot mailing list (which also means that only asking on IRC is not enough). This also goes for udebs that are not intended to be used in Debian Installer itself, but are e.g. for debian-edu or live CD or similar. The only exception is if a D-I porter needs an *architecture specific* udeb, but even then at least announcing it on the list is very much appreciated. The main reasons for this are: - the size of installation images should not be increased without discussion - every new udeb may need to be excluded in debian-cd - migration for all udebs needs to be consciously managed (which mostly falls to the D-I release manager) - because of the previous point, having a udeb is not always enjoyable for maintainers of regular packages because their packages may get blocked from transitioning to testing; we should therefore not have unused or trivial udebs Remember, and this was recently affirmed by the Technical Committee, that the debian-installer section of the repository is "owned" by the D-I team. Adding new udebs is a fairly major change. It seems only reasonable that people inform/consult their colleagues in the team before requesting them. We are of course work willing to work with anybody who wants to extend the installer (and history shows that we do), but only if it is done in the proper spirit of collaboration, and springing new udebs on the team is _not_ a good example of proper collaboration. Cheers, FJP ----- End forwarded message ----- </pre> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="183"></a> <strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>:<br> <code>Bug#367709</code>; Package <code>tech-ctte</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=184">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=184">mbox</a>, <a href="#183">link</a>).</p></p></div> <div class="infmessage"><hr><p> <a name="185"></a> <strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></code>:<br> Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to <code>Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org</code>. (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=186">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=186">mbox</a>, <a href="#185">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr><p class="msgreceived"><a name="187"></a><a name="msg187"></a><a href="#187">Message #187</a> received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=187">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=187">mbox</a>, <a href="mailto:367709@bugs.debian.org?subject=Re%3A%20%5Belendil%40planet.nl%3A%20Bug%23430023%3A%20please%20add%20gnu-fdisk-udeb%20and%20gnu-cfdisk-udeb%5D&References=%3C20070716084404.GA27006%40powerlinux.fr%3E&In-Reply-To=%3C20070716084404.GA27006%40powerlinux.fr%3E&body=On%20Mon%2C%2016%20Jul%202007%2010%3A44%3A04%20%2B0200%20Sven%20Luther%20%3Csven%40powerlinux.fr%3E%20wrote%3A%0A%3E%20Hi%20Technical%20Committee%20member%2C%20...%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Notice%20the%20below%20case%2C%20which%20is%20very%20very%20linked%20to%20the%20request%20for%20a%0A%3E%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20It%20is%20very%20strange%20to%20me%2C%20to%20see%20the%20stronghold%20the%20d-i%20folk%20have%20over%0A%3E%20the%20.udeb%20packages%2C%20while%20the%20mere%20existence%20of%20a%20.udeb%20does%20not%20in%20any%0A%3E%20way%20mean%20it%20will%20be%20used%20by%20the%20debian-installer%2C%20and%20thus%20renders%20bogus%0A%3E%20the%20main%20argument%20against%20having%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%2C%20and%20blocks%20progress%0A%3E%20and%20innovation%20in%20areas%20other%20than%20d-i.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Please%20consider%20this%20the%20next%20time%20you%20have%20to%20judge%20a%20complaint%0A%3E%20concerning%20.udeb%20packages%2C%20and%20note%20the%20immobilism%20and%20conservatism%20of%0A%3E%20Frans%20and%20the%20d-i%20leadership%20on%20these%20issues.%20If%20not%20for%20them%2C%20we%20could%0A%3E%20have%20a%20nicer%20graphical%20partitioner%20for%20d-i%20and%20a%20ghost%20like%20feature%20by%0A%3E%20now.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Also%20notice%20that%20even%20Colin%20Watson%20tried%20out%20the%20gparted%20route%20in%0A%3E%20ubuntu%2C%20which%20implied%20using%20a%20libstdc%2B%2B%20.udeb%20or%20some%20other%20mean%2C%20even%0A%3E%20though%20he%20didn%27t%20like%20the%20experiment%2C%20but%20hey%2C%20we%20should%20be%20producing%20an%0A%3E%20open%20and%20free%20operating%20system%2C%20and%20leaving%20the%20door%20open%20to%0A%3E%20experimentation%20is%20an%20important%20part%20of%20it.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Friendly%2C%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Sven%20Luther%0A%3E%20-----%20Forwarded%20message%20from%20Frans%20Pop%20%3Celendil%40planet.nl%3E%20-----%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20From%3A%20Frans%20Pop%20%3Celendil%40planet.nl%3E%0A%3E%20To%3A%20430023%40bugs.debian.org%0A%3E%20Subject%3A%20Bug%23430023%3A%20please%20add%20gnu-fdisk-udeb%20and%20gnu-cfdisk-udeb%0A%3E%20Date%3A%20Fri%2C%2013%20Jul%202007%2001%3A48%3A17%20%2B0200%0A%3E%20Cc%3A%20debian-boot%40lists.debian.org%2C%20debian-release%40lists.debian.org%2C%0A%3E%20%09430023-submitter%40bugs.debian.org%0A%3E%20Message-Id%3A%20%3C200707130148.18042.elendil%40planet.nl%3E%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Hello%20Julien%2C%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20I%20was%20quite%20surprised%20to%20see%20the%20two%20new%20udebs%20from%20your%20source%20package%20%0A%3E%20gnu-fdisk%20appear.%20Mainly%20because%20there%20has%20not%20been%20any%20discussion%20by%20%0A%3E%20Robert%20about%20adding%20them%20with%20the%20rest%20of%20the%20D-I%20team%20and%20the%20D-I%20%0A%3E%20release%20managers%20in%20particular.%20As%20we%20do%20always%20try%20to%20limit%20the%20size%20of%20%0A%3E%20the%20installer%2C%20having%20udebs%20for%20which%20we%20do%20not%20have%20an%20actual%20use-case%20%0A%3E%20is%20not%20very%20desirable.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Of%20course%2C%20this%20is%20not%20really%20your%20problem%2C%20but%20more%20a%20problem%20within%20the%20%0A%3E%20D-I%20team.%20For%20now%20however%2C%20it%20does%20mean%20that%20your%20package%20is%20blocked%20from%20%0A%3E%20migrating%20to%20testing%20%5B1%5D%20until%20we%20have%20discussed%20the%20need%20for%20the%20udebs%20%0A%3E%20in%20the%20team.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20It%27s%20up%20to%20you%20if%20you%27d%20prefer%20to%20remove%20the%20udebs%20again%20for%20now%2C%20but%20my%20%0A%3E%20suggestion%20would%20be%20to%20wait%20for%20the%20result%20of%20the%20discussion%20on%20the%20%0A%3E%20debian-boot%20list.%20As%20far%20as%20I%27m%20concerned%20it%20is%20up%20to%20Robert%20to%20initiate%20%0A%3E%20that%20discussion%20by%20explaining%20his%20reasons%20for%20requesting%20them.%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20Cheers%2C%0A%3E%20Frans%20Pop%0A%3E%20%28former%2C%20but%20still%20acting%20D-I%20Release%20Manager%29%0A%3E%20%0A%3E%20%5B1%5D%20Note%20that%20_all_%20packages%20that%20have%20udebs%20are%20blocked%20from%20migrating%20%0A">reply</a>):</p> <div class="headers"> <img src="/cgi-bin/libravatar.cgi?email=sven%40powerlinux.fr" alt=""> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">From:</span> Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr></div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">To:</span> 367709@bugs.debian.org</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Subject:</span> [elendil@planet.nl: Bug#430023: please add gnu-fdisk-udeb and gnu-cfdisk-udeb]</div> <div class="header"><span class="headerfield">Date:</span> Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:44:04 +0200</div> </div> <pre class="message">Hi Technical Committee member, ... Notice the below case, which is very very linked to the request for a libstdc++ .udeb. It is very strange to me, to see the stronghold the d-i folk have over the .udeb packages, while the mere existence of a .udeb does not in any way mean it will be used by the debian-installer, and thus renders bogus the main argument against having a libstdc++ .udeb, and blocks progress and innovation in areas other than d-i. Please consider this the next time you have to judge a complaint concerning .udeb packages, and note the immobilism and conservatism of Frans and the d-i leadership on these issues. If not for them, we could have a nicer graphical partitioner for d-i and a ghost like feature by now. Also notice that even Colin Watson tried out the gparted route in ubuntu, which implied using a libstdc++ .udeb or some other mean, even though he didn't like the experiment, but hey, we should be producing an open and free operating system, and leaving the door open to experimentation is an important part of it. Friendly, Sven Luther ----- Forwarded message from Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> ----- From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> To: 430023@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#430023: please add gnu-fdisk-udeb and gnu-cfdisk-udeb Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:48:17 +0200 Cc: debian-boot@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org, 430023-submitter@bugs.debian.org Message-Id: <200707130148.18042.elendil@planet.nl> Hello Julien, I was quite surprised to see the two new udebs from your source package gnu-fdisk appear. Mainly because there has not been any discussion by Robert about adding them with the rest of the D-I team and the D-I release managers in particular. As we do always try to limit the size of the installer, having udebs for which we do not have an actual use-case is not very desirable. Of course, this is not really your problem, but more a problem within the D-I team. For now however, it does mean that your package is blocked from migrating to testing [1] until we have discussed the need for the udebs in the team. It's up to you if you'd prefer to remove the udebs again for now, but my suggestion would be to wait for the result of the discussion on the debian-boot list. As far as I'm concerned it is up to Robert to initiate that discussion by explaining his reasons for requesting them. Cheers, Frans Pop (former, but still acting D-I Release Manager) [1] Note that _all_ packages that have udebs are blocked from migrating automatically. This is not really something special for your package. But it will require an OK from the D-I release manager before the package will be allowed to migrate. ----- End forwarded message ----- </pre> <div class="msgreceived"><hr><p> <a name="188"></a>  <strong>Bug archived.</strong> Request was from <code>Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org></code> to <code>internal_control@bugs.debian.org</code>. (Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:26:49 GMT) (<a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;msg=189">full text</a>, <a href="bugreport.cgi?bug=367709;mbox=yes;msg=189">mbox</a>, <a href="#188">link</a>).</p></p></div> <hr> <p class="msgreceived">Send a report that <a href="https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugspam.cgi?bug=367709">this bug log contains spam</a>.</p> <hr> <ADDRESS>Debian bug tracking system administrator <<A HREF="mailto:owner@bugs.debian.org">owner@bugs.debian.org</A>>. Last modified: Wed Feb 26 02:38:35 2025; Machine Name: bembo <P> <A HREF="https://www.debian.org/Bugs/">Debian Bug tracking system</A> </p> <p> Debbugs is free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2. The current version can be obtained from <a href="https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/">https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/</a>. </p> <p> Copyright 漏 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson, 2005-2017 Don Armstrong, and many other contributors. </p> </ADDRESS> </body> </html>