-- Grzegorz B. Prokopski <gadek@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org SableVM - LGPLed JVM http://www.sablevm.org Why SableVM ?!? http://devel.sablevm.org/wiki/Features
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
- Cc: 252346@bugs.debian.org, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Bug#252346: dpkg: Breaks the debian-amd64 port
- From: Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:24:59 -0300
- Message-id: <1086276299.4094.4.camel@syndicate>
- In-reply-to: <20040603151445.GP11196@ns.snowman.net>
- References: <E1BVcgk-0005N3-Vq@dual> <1086212941.16152.25.camel@syndicate> <20040602233108.GK11196@ns.snowman.net> <1086275448.4094.2.camel@syndicate> <20040603151445.GP11196@ns.snowman.net>
On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 11:14 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Scott James Remnant (scott@netsplit.com) wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 19:31 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > The decision wasn't yours to make. > > > > Fair enough, I've backed out the .22 changes *entirely*. There is > > clearly a vast disagreement between the various porters about what is > > best and even whether the archtable entries are right in the first > > place. > > Very well. We'll start a seperate discussion on the debian-amd64 list > as to what the entries should be and attempt to come up to a consensus. > Once that's done we can forward you a patch, will that be acceptable? > Yes, please ensure the mail is signed by everyone on the list to indicate it has been agreed and you're *all* happy with it. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--- End Message ---