[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#266762: Processed: Re: Bug#270506: rpvm_0.6.2-1(ia64/unstable): FTBFS: non-PIC in shared lib

severity 270506 wishlist
reassign 270506 tech-ctte
merge 270506 266762

On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 08:33:03PM -0700, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>> reassign 270506 pvm
> Bug#270506: rpvm_0.6.2-1(ia64/unstable): FTBFS: non-PIC in shared lib
> Bug reassigned from package `rpvm' to `pvm'.

Please, this makes no sense anymore. The tech-ctte has not yet reached its
conclusion (at least not via a formal vote), but the three people (out of
seven) who have said anything seem to agree quite clearly with me:

I wrote:
>>> The entire discussion here is whether #266762 is wishlist or not. I claim it
>>> is; the rpvm people claim it is serious.

Raul Miller replied:
>> It's a serious bug for rpvm, it's a wishlist bug for pvm.

Manoj Srivastava replied:
> This is my take on it as well.

Also, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> - #266837 should not have been reassigned.  It should remain open against
>   rpvm at priority important until the package succesfully builds on the
>   rest of Debian's architectures.
> - #266762 et al remain open at whatever priority the pvm maintainer wants,
>   wishlist is certainly within their rights.

Given that you'll need 4:1 majority in the tech-ctte to overrule me on bugs
against pvm (as I am the pvm package maintainer), and three out of seven (the
other four are still silent) seem to agree that I can let 266762 be wishlist,
could we please stop playing BTS-pingpong and get on with releasing sarge?

/* Steinar */
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/

Reply to: