Bug#587886: future of maintaining of the bootloader LILO
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think it's clear from William's response that joint maintainership
> involving both William on one hand, and one or both of Matt and
> Joachim on the other hand, is not tenable.
>
> I think this leaves the Technical Committee with two options:
>
> A. lilo should be removed. In the meantime, William is to be sole
> maintainer of lilo. His promised request to the ftp team to
> remove lilo should be honoured, after which the ftp masters should
> not permit Matt and/or Joachim to reupload a new lilo package.
>
> B. lilo should be retained in unstable. Matt and Joachim are to be
> joint maintainers of lilo.
>
> If lilo is retained in unstable that does not mean, of course, that it
> will be included in squeeze (or indeed any other relase). If anyone
> (William included) feels that the package has bugs which are so
> serious that they should not be included in Debian releases, then they
> may file bugs at a release-critical severity.
>
> If the bugs are determined to be release-critical (by the maintainer
> in the first instance of course, but subject to review by the Release
> Team and Technical Committee) then the package will not be released.
>
> Does anyone disagree with this assessment ?
This sounds correct and reasonable to me. Is anyone not happy with
bringing this issue to a vote in the near future? Is there some other
question or more information which we need to resolve?
Don Armstrong
--
If I had a letter, sealed it in a locked vault and hid the vault
somewhere in New York. Then told you to read the letter, thats not
security, thats obscurity. If I made a letter, sealed it in a vault,
gave you the blueprints of the vault, the combinations of 1000 other
vaults, access to the best lock smiths in the world, then told you to
read the letter, and you still can't, thats security.
-- Bruce Schneier
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: