On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 08:04:38 -0400, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This issue has degenerated to name calling at this point, and in
> other threads, Godwin's law has even been invoked, perhaps not to
> great effect.
Yeah, I lost it in the last exchange.
> I agree with you Manoj, as I suspect most people who have commented
> on this list, but perhaps this is time to refer the issue to the
> Technical Committee, and get them to issue a ruling on this question
> one way or another?
I was hoping it would not come to that. So far, we have only
_once_ over ridden the maintainer on package handling using the
weight of the tech ctte, and evern there the developer was not dead
set against it.
Perhaps I'll take a rest from this thread and let other try
and convince the TeTeX developer before invoking the tech ctte.
manoj
--
It's easier to be original and foolish than original and
wise. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <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
