Re: Bug#241689: I'm going to NMU this
* Goswin von Brederlow:
>> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:56:27 +0200, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> said:
>>> From a formal point of view, it's certainly not acceptable
>>> that someone who's been denied membership tries to bypass these
>>> safeguards.
>
> Note that there were one rejected person (me), two non DDs and 5 DDs
> directly involved in that group of buildds. Also the buildds were
> setup following the recommendations in the big buildd flameware a
> while back to setup our own wanna-build to work without of James
> wanna-build. Noone ever mentioned that buildds must be sanctioned or
> any other restrictions for them.
How is this related to buildds anyway? Didn't you announce a
_non-binary_ NMU of a questionable change, on behalf of the unofficial
amd64 release team?
Obviously, if Debian relies on non-DD buildds, there has to be some
degree of binary-only NMUs which come, in essence, from non-DDs. But
this shouldn't imply that these people have archive access in the way
DDs have.
Reply to: