Re: _Our_ resolution merely affirms the status quo
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 06:32:11 +0200, Andreas Barth <email@example.com> said:
> * Graham Wilson (firstname.lastname@example.org) [040605 06:25]:
>> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:01:18AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> > I think that you also mean me with your mail. Perhaps you're
>> > right, and it may be the best to drop both proposals F and G from
>> > the ballot. I wouldn't stand in the way of dropping both
>> > proposals together from the ballot, and vote about the remaining
>> > proposals now.
>> By dropping proposal F from the ballot, we are dropping the only
>> proposal that does not support releasing Sarge as is. We will not
>> drop a proposal simply because you disagree with it.
> But we should drop proposal G because simply because some other
> people disagree? Or did I understand the latest mails wrong?
No. Proposal G is not on the ballot because
a) it is trying to contravene a foundation doc without actually
overruling it, and
b) it has unrelated issues in the same proposal,
This is not a matter of not liking G.
> I get the following error messages at bootup, could anyone tell me
> what they mean? fcntl_setlk() called by process 51 (lpd) with broken
> flock() emulation They mean that you have not read the documentation
> when upgrading the kernel. seen on c.o.l.misc
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C