On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 07:10 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 01:07 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Pretty much all of these lead me to conclude that we should resolve > > along the following lines: > > > > * We request that dpkg should be changed to use `amd64'. > > Should the dpkg maintainers decline, we will seek clarification of > > the Constitution and consider using our powers in 6.1(1), 6.1(2) or > > 6.1(4) to overrule the dpkg maintainers. > > > Restored that patch, thanks for you time. > This seems to have caused some confusion -- by restored that patch I mean "put it back into play in my arch repository". This won't yet move to dpkg CVS or into a release until tech-ctte vote on things -- which aiui. they are still to do. The thanks were directed at Ian for writing the mail, Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part