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

Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb

On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:32:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.

As this was submitted as a request to overrule a maintainer's decision, I
don't see any reason to defer the TC vote pending a more compelling 'pro'

> 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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

FWIW, I think it could have been made clearer that choice 2 refers to not
overruling the maintainer's decision, rather than instructing the maintainer
not to create the udeb package.

> 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.

Contrary to Sven's assertions about the TC as a whole, I did give due
consideration to the question in the first place and wouldn't hesitate to
reconsider the matter in the light of new information.  But as I noted in
the rationale appended to my vote, there are some technical issues that have
not been addressed in the current proposal to overrule; I think these would
need to be sorted before I would be willing to overrule the maintainer's
decision here (but then, if they were sorted I have no reason to think the
maintainer would have to be overruled).

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/

Reply to: