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 http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature