* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060605 20:14]: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:42:21AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060604 23:24]: > > > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:45:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > So, I propose the following conclusions from us: > > > > Hmm, in Mexico we discussed that this bug was out of order for the TC to > > > consider. Why do we not just punt the bug over to the responsibles? > > > (ftp.debian.org? libstdc++?) > > > because we thaught the maintainers didn't decide yet. We learned on > > Sunday however that the maintainers did decide about a udeb in the d-i > > section - and the answer was no (for obvious reasons).
> Hmm, who's "we"? And I guess you mean that the d-i maintainers decided they > didn't want this, not that the gcc maintainer decided it would not be > provided? "we" = "the people at the Indian cooking" the gcc maintainers decided that they will add it only when the d-i maintainers need it, and the d-i maintainer decided to not need it. Actually, even Sven doesn't want it for d-i, so he asks us to overwrite the decision of the gcc maintainers. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
