Re: Bug#535645: I strongly suggest...
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> Jaime Ochoa Malagón <chptma@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> We, the debian amd64 users should be able to pick our own poison, I
>> really prefer to have ia32-libs-tools because this work far more close
>> to debian way of package manage, the ia32-libs is an incomplete lazy
>> solution with a huge package that needs the maintainer to update a small
>> part of it (any library in the bundle) exposing us to security risks by
>> example, any way, the work done by Goswin has been proved and is working
>> obviously needs maintain to being better but Goswin is doing a great
>> job.
>
>> Why loose a great package that's helps to use practically any ia32
>> program just by a political reason?
>
> This sort of message is not likely to be helpful. Technical committee
> decisions are not a popularity contest, and there have been specific
> objections to the design of the package previously discussed in this
> thread. It is not correct to state that the only issues here are
> political.
Correct. There so far is no stated issue with ia32-libs-tools at
all. So far there has only been speculation, as Steve pointed out.
So far there has been no reason given to uphold the ftp-master
decision other than "they made it".
On the other hand I think point 4 of the social contract is relevant
here:
| 4. Our priorities are our users and free software
|
| We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
| community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
| will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
| kinds of computing environments.
Will you let yourself be guided by the users need for ia32-libs-tools
to run 32bit software comfortably where ia32-libs is insufficient?
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: