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

Bug#342455: tech-ctte: Ownership and permissions of device mapper block devices

Guy Maor writes ("Bug#342455: tech-ctte: Ownership and permissions of device mapper block devices"):
> I agree with your technical assessment, Ian.

Do you have an opinion about 660 vs 640 ?  And the question of
equivalence to root ?

> On 12/13/05, Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > I think the committee's ruling should explicitly castigate
> > the devmapper maintainer for failing to engage constructively with any
> > of the submitters.
> But I disagree with this.  I think such a statement would be
> patronizing and unhelpful.

I don't see why it would be patronising for us to officially criticise
someone for their behaviour.  In this case it has been outrageously

In particular, I think that telling someone off for being
unconstructive might help clarify what is and isn't sensible behaviour
by a maintainer.

Something like:

  N. The Technical Committee is disappointed by the approach
     taken by the relevant package maintainer, who has demonstrated an
     unhelpful and obstructive attitude.  Lack of effort to fix a
     problem is acceptable; disagreement about the proper behaviour is
     acceptable; even insistence by the maintainer on the correctness
     of their approach is acceptable.  Failure to even acknowledge the
     matter coupled with bare refusals of assistance (in the form of
     NMUs, in this case) is not acceptable.


Reply to: