On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 11:30:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes: > >> This is a no-op by rule of the constitution. > Might be a no-op but its an ultimatum of a sort. > You could formulate it as: > That the developers in charge for adding the architecture identified by > dpkg as "amd64", hereinafter "amd64", to the "unstable" archive, is > violating the constituion and is warned to follow it. > Is that less of a no-op? No, then it's just a lie. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature