Bug#587886: future of maintaining of the bootloader LILO
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > Joachim Wiedorn writes:
>
> >> Finally it would be nice we could move the new Debian packages into
> >> Debian unstable ...
>
> > I agree that Joachim and Matt Arnold should be made the joint lilo
> > maintainers. Would other TC members please express an opinion ?
>
> If people are actively maintaining lilo, then yes, I think those people
> should be the package maintainers in preference to removing the package.
> In general, I think a good principle to follow is that if there are people
> who actively care about a package, we shouldn't remove that package unless
> there's some sort of overriding issue.
Is there any objection to starting the voting process on this issue
with the options presented in
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=587886#55 ?
[for reference:
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.
]
Don Armstrong
--
Quite the contrary; they *love* collateral damage. If they can make
you miserable enough, maybe you'll stop using email entirely. Once
enough people do that, then there'll be no legitimate reason left for
anyone to run an SMTP server, and the spam problem will be solved.
-- Craig Dickson in <20020909231134.GA18917@linux700.localnet>
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: