On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 04:26:49PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > How about this for a disposal:
I would vote for the below with reservation or modifications. Thanks for drafting this, Ian. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org > The Technical Committee notes that: > > 1. The syslinux maintainer has uploaded syslinux 5 to unstable. > > 2. The Release Managers intend to release wheezy with syslinux 4. > > 3. debian-installer even in wheezy and even now during the freeze > uses syslinux binaries from unstable when building installers. > > Our view is that: > > 4. Updating to syslinux 5 at this stage of the release (whether in > the installer, or generally) is out of the question. > > 5. It is arguable that arrangements should be made so that during the > freeze debian-installer builds using testing's syslinux. Similar > considerations may apply to shared libraries. > > 6. However now is not the time for these kind of process > improvements. We therefore state no definite conclusion on this > question. > > 7. The new syslinux should not have been uploaded to unstable, before > the corresponding process improvements (if indeed they are > improvements) are in place. > > Accordingly we decide as follows, overruling the syslinux maintainer: > > 9. The version of syslinux in wheezy should be re-uploaded to > unstable. > > 9. No other updates should be made to syslinux in unstable, unless > one of the following applies: > > (i) wheezy has been released and jessie opened and unfrozen; > > (ii) the Release Managers give their consent; or > > (iii) the debian-installer maintainers confirm that arrangements > have been put in place to avoid this problem. > > 10. The syslinux maintainer should state ASAP what package version > number they would like to be used for this re-upload. Any NMU of > syslinux should honour such a statement, and in the absence of > such a statement should not be made before 2013-02-10 17:00+0000. > > And we make the following (non-binding) statements of our opinion: > > 11. We request that everyone involved in this issue cordially discuss > possible process improvements, preferably after the release of > wheezy. > > 12. Whenever changes to Debian's software and processes are required, > deployment should occur in a planned and cooperative way. > Maintainers should be reluctant to upload changes which break > other packages. If such breakage is necessary to move forward, it > should only occur after obtaining rough consensus amongst the > relevant contributors or the project as a whole.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
