Re: Bug#241689: I'm going to NMU this
Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> * 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?
The inital topic was fixing bug #241689 and completly unrelated to
anything past the second or third mail. I expressed my intention to
prepare an source NMU fix a FTBFS amd64 bug and then there was a
ping-pong with the maintainer to reach a compromise what that fix
should contain. Nothing questionable but totally unrealted to the
the rest of the thread.
> 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
Which now isn't OK any longer. Non-DDs are untrusted (as in hasn't
been declared trusted and no DD on its own can decide that for Debian).
> this shouldn't imply that these people have archive access in the way
> DDs have.
That was never in question.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: