Re: *UNAPPROVED* dpkg nmu
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: *UNAPPROVED* dpkg nmu
- From: Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <leader@debian.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:46:09 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20040301114609.GA18868@deprecation.cyrius.com>
- In-reply-to: <87eksfdx7u.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402272039560.2158-100000@gradall.private.brainfood.com> <20040228112846.GA22705@deprecation.cyrius.com> <87eksfdx7u.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>
* Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> [2004-02-28 09:45]:
> own. You do not know). And there is no reason why the meeting could
> not have been announced on d-d-a, or d-d, and people could have
> contributed ideas to be discussed.
BTW, I just remembered that it was indeed mentioned on d-d-a:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/debian-devel-announce-200402/msg00006.html
Since Wichert Akkerman will attend this meeting, I have also invited
some Debian developers to discuss the bi-arch issue and find out how
it could be implemented best.
(Yes, the original plan was to just discuss bi-arch, but after talking
to Wichert we agreed it makes sense to discuss the status of dpkg in
general as well.)
[I realize that we should've mailed -dpkg explictly to ask for more feeback and
let people know; there wasn't a specific reason it wasn't done; however, the
text above mailed to d-d-a is quite public (as to "backdoor and secret
meeting") and people could've commented.]
--
Martin Michlmayr
leader@debian.org
Reply to: