Debian Bug report logs - #367709
requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).

Package: tech-ctte; Maintainer for tech-ctte is Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>;

Reported by: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>

Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:18:06 UTC

Owned by: ajt@debian.org

Severity: normal

Done: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Cc: x.oswald@free.fr
Subject: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:51:52 +0200
Package: tech-ctte

Hi, ...

I am sorry to ask again the help of the technical comittee in such a short
time, but this time it is a true technical issue, altough there is a bit of
the social issues overshadowing it too, by virtue of the folk involved.

Some time back, Xavier Oswald started working on a new graphical partitioner
for g-i, as part of his studie's 'stage' (err, practikum in german, no idea in
english). The original project asked for a reuse of the gparted code base, as
well as integrating the partimage technology.

After some discussion, this was vetoed by the d-i people, who didn't want to
have any C++ stuff in the installer, even though it was probably not going to
make such a size increase. A few other also commented negatively on it, the
gcc maintainer, doko, never even responded to our queries due to that.

As a result, Xavier reimplemented gparted in C, and altough he made progress,
it remains to see if his work will be in time for etch. In any case the idea
of reusing partimage is abandoned because there is too little time to
reimplement it in C, and it is probably a more critical and complicated code
base.

That said, with the advent of g-i, there are other usages of .udeb packages,
and the g-i infrastructure itself leaves the door open to a wide variety of
innovative and interesting applications, not necessarily around the core d-i
technologies.

Among those applications, integrating the new partitioner and a partimage
derivative, would allow for a ghost-like non-d-i standalone image, which would
probably be of interest to many people. 

Furthermore, with the inclusion of SDL and some gaming tools previsted for
etch, could lead the way of easy reuse of that technology for standalone
games, usable in small embedded systems, or even some freevo thingy would
allow to create images suitable for a tivo like setup, running entirely from a
flash image and so on.

The applications are many, and portend a very bright future for the .udeb
format, as well as an area of developpment which has typically not been
debian's strongest place, despite meritatory efforts like the emdebian stuff.

So, now that this context is etablished, and i hope i forgot none of it this
time :), i file this bug to request that a libstdc++ .udeb be created, either
by the gcc maintainers (easier and better), or as a patch which the gcc
maintainer would then apply.

This leads the way of a usage of the .udebs format beyond the sole scope of
d-i, and it is envisageable that other libraries become .udebized in the
future, or even stuff like the java vms or whatever else may be usefull in the
semi-embedded space.

I hope to have been clear in this report, and provided good arguments for this
case. I file it now, because the attendance of many people at debconf will
probably make the discussion about this topic easier.

And again, one last clarification, this is not aimed for inclusion into d-i,
as the d-i people have clearly rejected such, and will probably not be
something that will be releasable as part of etch, but would live at the
fringes of it, until a better integration may be possible at the etch+1 stage.

Friendly,

Sven Luther




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to moth@debian.org:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Raul Miller" <moth.debian@gmail.com>
To: "Sven Luther" <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>, 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 17:06:04 -0400
I'm not sure what you're asking.

Ideally, I'd like to see three things:

(1) A concise description of the technical conflict that needs to be resolved.

(2) Good background material for understanding any subtle issues
underlying the conflict.

(3) A concise, specific and unambiguous proposal for dealing with the conflict.

It looks to me as if you've put quite a lot of effort into (2).
However, I'm not at all certain I know what obstacle you are running
into, and I've some uncertainties about what you are proposing.

Have you talked to the di people about this issue?  Have they raised
any objections?  If so, what are they?  (We should get involved if you
feel that they are making a choice which is technically incorrect and
which you can't resolve directly.)

Thanks,

-- 
Raul



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>
To: 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 10:59:23 +0200
Raul Miller wrote:

> Have you talked to the di people about this issue?  Have they raised
> any objections?  If so, what are they?  (We should get involved if you
> feel that they are making a choice which is technically incorrect and
> which you can't resolve directly.)

I've had this discussion with Sven a few times on IRC and even though 
I'm not a particularly active d-i developer, I think I can help answer 
your questions.

udebs are made for one particular purpose: supporting d-i.  They're not 
made as a general "small and stripped system" approach.  They're free to 
violate Debian policy (by not shipping documentation, eg), but they 
should support d-i.  Having other packages packaged as udebs makes 
testing migration harder and can in some cases cause problems for the 
installer, such as needlessly installing udebs due to priority.

The specific request here is not just for a udeb, but for introducing 
C++ into the realm of d-i.  I think I can speak for the d-i team when I 
say that they don't even want to tempt people into writing code using 
C++ for d-i (due to space issues as well as symbol mangling issues, 
etc), so in the same way that a suggestion to include perl, python, ruby 
or lua udebs would be opposed, a request to include C++ udebs is opposed.

I believe Sven would be better served by either using standard debs (and 
udebs, as appropriate) and mangling those, then put them into a firmware 
image or invent another format of debs-but-not-debs and use those as a 
basis for same.

- tfheen



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
To: 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:45:55 +0200
Hi,

* Sven Luther (sven.luther@wanadoo.fr) [060517 12:56]:
> That said, with the advent of g-i, there are other usages of .udeb packages,
> and the g-i infrastructure itself leaves the door open to a wide variety of
> innovative and interesting applications, not necessarily around the core d-i
> technologies.

Actually, what we miss here is that the actual maintainers opposed this
proposal. AFAIK Sven has asked it as part of the d-i section, and of
course, if it is not used by the installer, there is no reason to
provide it inside of the d-i udeb section (btw the only one we currently
have).

What we need if it should be used outside of d-i:
- A clear consensus of the embedded people or so to use udebs (AFAIK
  there is no consensus about that right now, and even not discussed out
  right now).
- Asking the relevant maintainers (that is *not* the d-i team) to
  - add other udeb section(s), by the ftp-masters
  - asking the maintainer to add non-d-i-udebs

So, I propose the following conclusions from us:

WHEREAS

1. Sven Luther asks us to enforce the maintainer to add an udeb for
libstdc++ which is not used in debian-installer.

2. There is no finished discussion whether embedded people really want
udebs, and the technicall committee is not the right place for detailed
design work (Constitution 6.3.5).

3. The technical committee makes decisions only as last resort
(Consitution 6.3.6).

4. The only existing udeb section is intended for the installer; the
ftp-masters were not even asked to add a new section.


THE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES

1. As the udeb is not intended for inclusion into debian-installer, we
agree with the maintainer's decision to not add an udeb in that section.

2. As the maintainers were not asked for adding another udeb section, we
don't make any decision about this.

3. We encourage the embedded people to continue there discussion about
the optimal format is for them, and to set up experimental environments
for their first tests by themself.



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #25 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
To: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 14:25:22 -0700
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++?)

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #30 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
To: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
Cc: 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 10:42:21 +0200
* Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) [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). So, there is
really something why we could decide - whether to override this
maintainers decision or rather not.

And, whom to put the bug to? I doubt ftp.d.o will do anything for this
bug report in the current state of the discussion, and I really prefer
to deal with it, instead of letting it bitrott somewhere.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #35 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
To: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:15:21 -0700
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:42:21AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) [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?

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #40 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
To: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
Cc: 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 20:21:24 +0200
* Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) [060605 20:14]:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:42:21AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) [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/



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #45 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
To: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
Cc: 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 21:29:48 +0200
reassign 367709 gcc-4.0,tech-ctte
thanks

* Andreas Barth (aba@not.so.argh.org) [060605 20:43]:
> 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.

After some more discussion on IRC, we noticed that there are different
interpretations of what the gcc maintainers supposed to have said. For
this reason, I'm re-assigning this bug report to also gcc-4.0.

Matthias, is there any decision from you whether to add an libstdc++
udeb or not, and if so, which? Please reassign this bug report back to
the tech ctte until there happens to be a decision everyone is happy
with. Sorry for troubling you, and thanks for your help.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/



Bug reassigned from package `tech-ctte' to `gcc-4.0,tech-ctte'. Request was from Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian GCC Maintainers <debian-gcc@lists.debian.org>, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#367709; Package gcc-4.0,tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian GCC Maintainers <debian-gcc@lists.debian.org>, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #52 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
To: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, 367709@bugs.debian.org
Cc: control@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 19:48:12 +0200
reassign 367709 tech-ctte
thanks

> After some more discussion on IRC, we noticed that there are different
> interpretations of what the gcc maintainers supposed to have said. For
> this reason, I'm re-assigning this bug report to also gcc-4.0.
> 
> Matthias, is there any decision from you whether to add an libstdc++
> udeb or not, and if so, which? Please reassign this bug report back to
> the tech ctte until there happens to be a decision everyone is happy
> with. Sorry for troubling you, and thanks for your help.

I would like to avoid building libgcc1, libgcc2, libgcc4, libstdc++6
packages if possible. An alternative possibility to build these could
be a separate source package b-d on gcc-4.1-source, as currently done
by gcj-4.1 and several cross compiler setups.

  Matthias



Bug reassigned from package `gcc-4.0,tech-ctte' to `tech-ctte'. Request was from Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> to control@bugs.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Owner recorded as ajt@debian.org. Request was from Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> to control@bugs.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Reply sent to bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee):
You have taken responsibility. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #61 received at 367709-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee)
To: 366938-done@bugs.debian.org, 367709-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: no longer relevant
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:06:02 -0400 (EDT)
Neither of these two Tech Committee requests remain relevant.  I am therefore 
closing these bugs with no further action taken.

Bdale



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #66 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>
To: 367709@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: Bug#367709 closed by bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee) (no longer relevant)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:29:13 +0200
reopen 367709
thanks

This request stays relevant, since it was not directly linked to myself.

It is not because i requested it, that a libstdc++ .udeb is not useful,
since other may be interested by a partimage enabled d-i for recovery
purpose.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:09:05AM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
> #367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).,
> which was filed against the tech-ctte package.
> 
> It has been closed by bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee).
> 
> Their explanation is attached below.  If this explanation is
> unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate
> message then please contact bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee) by replying
> to this email.
> 
> Debian bug tracking system administrator
> (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Orange vous informe que cet  e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail.
> Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte.
> 

> To: 366938-done@bugs.debian.org, 367709-done@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: no longer relevant
> Message-Id: <20070614040602.2DBC415E13D@rover.gag.com>
> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:06:02 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>
> 
> Neither of these two Tech Committee requests remain relevant.  I am therefore 
> closing these bugs with no further action taken.
> 
> Bdale




Bug reopened, originator not changed. Request was from Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:28:26 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #73 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>
To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org
Cc: 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#367709 reopened
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:55:04 -0400
owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System) writes:

>> reopen 367709

Sven's argument in favor of reopening this bug is not immediately persuasive
to me, both because I don't recall seeing any other support for this request
since he made it in May of 2006, and because the concensus of prior response 
captured in the bug log from Committee members seems to be that this request 
is out of order for us to consider.

Committee members, am I missing something?  Some discussion may be in order
at least to help me understand whether you now believe this is an issue we
should vote on?

Bdale



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #78 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>
To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709 reopened
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:44:28 +0100
Bdale Garbee writes ("Bug#367709 reopened"):
> owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System) writes:
> > reopen 367709
...
> Committee members, am I missing something?  Some discussion may be in order
> at least to help me understand whether you now believe this is an issue we
> should vote on?

I hereby propose as follows:

 The Committee is of the opinion that:
 1. It is not appropriate for the TC to rule on this matter; and/or
 2. We agree with the existing maintainers' decision.

 And, the Committee feels that:
 3. We feel that the complainant (Sven Luther) is not the right
    person to negotiate with the other maintainers in this area.

 For these reason(s), we conclude:
 4. This bug report should be closed.
 5. Should someone other than Sven Luther have a similar request
    we encourage them to do the appropriate design work and discuss
    the matter with the other affected maintainers.
 6. If such a person wishes to appeal a technical disagreement to
    the Technical Committee we encourage them to do so.

I vote in favour.

Ian.



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #83 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>
To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org
Cc: 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:09:46 +0100
I hereby call for an immediate TC vote on the question of whether a
libstdc++ udeb should be created to support the use of C++ in the 
debian-installer environment, as requested by bug #367709.

The udeb structure was invented for debian-installer, and to date 
Debian has not supported the use of udebs for any other purpose.
In the discussion on this issue recorded in the bug log and on our 
list, it seems clear that the d-i team does not want C++ support in 
the installer environment, and the gcc maintainer is reluctant to 
build and support udebs that the installer team doesn't need.  The 
question before us is therefore whether to support or overrule the 
developer responsible for our gcc packaging, and the developers 
involved in the debian-installer project.

Since this vote may overrule a developer, 6.1.3 of our Constitution 
requires a 3:1 majority of the TC for choice 1.  However, a simple 
majority will suffice for choice 2 to defeat further discussion.

  In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
  the brackets next to your next choice.  Continue until you reach your last
  choice.  Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 3.  You may
  skip numbers.  You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you
  make fall in the range 1 <= X <= 3).

  To vote "no, no matter what" rank "Further discussion" as more
  desirable than the unacceptable choices, or You may rank the "Further
  discussion" choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable
  blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
  choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further
  Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
  choices, if any.)

- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[   ] Choice 1: a libstdc++ udeb should be created as per bug #367709
[   ] Choice 2: a libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709
[   ] Choice 3: Further discussion
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #88 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>
To: 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:15:25 +0100
bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee) writes:

> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [ 3 ] Choice 1: a libstdc++ udeb should be created as per bug #367709
> [ 1 ] Choice 2: a libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709
> [ 2 ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I support the collective opinions of the debian-installer team and maintainer 
of our compiler packaging.  Further discussion would be required to convince
me that we should overrule developer(s) on this issue.

In general, it seems to me that there should be a "burden of proof" on the 
bug submitter in cases like this that are fundamentally a request for a new 
feature addition.  Such proof might include implementing the requested change
by creating a suitably patched version of the package in question, and then 
showing us the "cool stuff" their proposed change enables through a suitable 
demo program.  

Bdale



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #93 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:51:55 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:09:46AM +0100, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> The udeb structure was invented for debian-installer, and to date 
> Debian has not supported the use of udebs for any other purpose.

(With ftpmaster hat: I would expect non d-i uses of udebs to be in a
different section of the archive than main/debian-installer; it would
require some development work for that to be possible. I don't believe
there's been sufficient justification for non d-i udebs to warrant that
effort or the ongoing support of an additional udeb section)

> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [ 2 ] Choice 1: a libstdc++ udeb should be created as per bug #367709
> [ 1 ] Choice 2: a libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709
> [ 3 ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Cheers,
aj

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Reply sent to Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>:
You have taken responsibility. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #98 received at 367709-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>
To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org
Cc: 367709-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:56:10 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee) writes:

> I hereby call for an immediate TC vote on the question of whether a
> libstdc++ udeb should be created to support the use of C++ in the 
> debian-installer environment, as requested by bug #367709.

While I would be pleased to see responses from Ian and Manoj at their
convenience, with four of six committee members responding, the outcome 
of this vote is no longer in doubt.

The committee endorses choice 2, a libstdc++ udeb should not be created 
despite bug #367709.

Bdale
[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #103 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>
To: control@bugs.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: There is still no valid reason to close this bug.
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 07:56:56 +0200
reopen 367709
thanks

Dear Technical Committee members, ...

There is still no reason to close this bug, and no reason to not create
a libstdc++ .udeb.

Furthermore, the decision of the d-i team on this was highly
overshadowed by their personal vendetta against me, and not based on
technical argumentation. In particular, it was based on the sole
decision of Frans Pop, and we all know he has not acted exemplarily on
this.

The fact that you chose to close this bug now, because i have been
expulsed in a way debian should be most ashamed of, shows that your
decision is only marginally guided by technical reasons.

It costs nothing to create a libstdc++ .udeb, the only reason not to do
it is to accomodate the debian-installer team, who has irrationally
refused it, not for technical reason, but out of conservative dogma, and
private feud against me. Just look at how Frans Pop leashed out against
Eddy Petrisor, when he dared critic the current version of the d-i
partitioning tool, and menaced him of going the same way as i have. He
did that, not because of argumented reasoning, but because i encouraged
Xavier Oswald to work on a gparted based .udeb for the installer, which
required a libstdc++ .udeb.

Creating a libstdc++ .udeb would allow to have in the d-i archive a
partimage .udeb, which would allow for seamless backuping and restoring
of partitions. Thhis does not need to be part of d-i propper, since the
d-i leadership has (mis)judged that c++ in the d-i is anathema, but it
can easily be downloaded as extra package without any cost to d-i.

So, please stand up to your name, and look at this issue in a solely
technical way, and look at the benefits of creating a libstdc++ .udeb,
over the cost of not doing so.

So, the comparison is between having ghost-like capability available
optionnally in d-i, and reinforcing the pride of a few DDs who let their
personal vendetta go over technical judgement.

But then, given that i was destroyed fully just because of this same
issue, i fair that you will not be able for whatever reason to make an
objective technical decision on this,

How sad, ...

Sadly,

Sven Luther





Bug reopened, originator not changed. Request was from Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sun, 24 Jun 2007 06:00:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to debian-project@lists.debian.org:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #110 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@ftbfs.de>
To: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>, 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: There is still no valid reason to close this bug.
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 08:42:45 +0200
Hi Sven, 

On Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:05:10 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> There is still no reason to close this bug, and no reason to not create
> a libstdc++ .udeb.
> 
> Furthermore, the decision of the d-i team on this was highly
> overshadowed by their personal vendetta against me, and not based on
> technical argumentation. In particular, it was based on the sole
> decision of Frans Pop, and we all know he has not acted exemplarily on
> this.
> 
> The fact that you chose to close this bug now, because i have been
> expulsed in a way debian should be most ashamed of, shows that your
> decision is only marginally guided by technical reasons.

You opened a bug against the ctte, which is your perfect right as Debian
Package Maintainer. With this bug you asked for technical advice from
the ctte team. The ctte had it's discussion from May 17th, 2006 whereas
in the end Bdale Garbee called for a vote on June 22nd, 2007. The
outcome of the vote (as outlined by Bdale in Message-ID:
<878xacc4id.fsf@rover.gag.com>) is that the committee endorses choice 2,
and libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709.

I see no misstake in the whole procedure. You asked for advice, they
voted, the outcome was quite clear, case closed for the ctte. Please
respect the outcome of their vote, as you yourself asked for it.

Please try to understand that you should accept their oppinion even
though they didn't vote in favour for your wish. Such things happen, in
Debian as well as in politics.

Greetings
Martin

PS: i set the reply-to to debian-project and will (as listmaster) accept
answers from you to that thread there, as long as they stay on technical
stuff, and are not personal insults against any member of the Debian
Project.
-- 
[root@debian /root]# man real-life
No manual entry for real-life




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #115 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>
To: debian-project@lists.debian.org
Cc: 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: There is still no valid reason to close this bug.
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 09:19:17 +0200
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 08:42:45AM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi Sven, 
> 
> On Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:05:10 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > There is still no reason to close this bug, and no reason to not create
> > a libstdc++ .udeb.
> > 
> > Furthermore, the decision of the d-i team on this was highly
> > overshadowed by their personal vendetta against me, and not based on
> > technical argumentation. In particular, it was based on the sole
> > decision of Frans Pop, and we all know he has not acted exemplarily on
> > this.
> > 
> > The fact that you chose to close this bug now, because i have been
> > expulsed in a way debian should be most ashamed of, shows that your
> > decision is only marginally guided by technical reasons.
> 
> You opened a bug against the ctte, which is your perfect right as Debian
> Package Maintainer. With this bug you asked for technical advice from
> the ctte team. The ctte had it's discussion from May 17th, 2006 whereas
> in the end Bdale Garbee called for a vote on June 22nd, 2007. The
> outcome of the vote (as outlined by Bdale in Message-ID:
> <878xacc4id.fsf@rover.gag.com>) is that the committee endorses choice 2,
> and libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709.

Exact, and the first closing was : "it makes no more sense to keep this
bug open", or in other words, "we got ride of Sven Luther, so there is
no sense in keeping this bug open". There was no discussion on the
technical merits of the bug, but rather the decision was made back then
not to offense Frans Pop and the d-i team, and was not objective since i
was already condemned as a whiner and trouble maker.

The question is, do you consider that having partimage available in the
debian-installer, even if optionally, is a good thing (and if you say
no, please argument, because i doubt anyone can honestly say no to this
one), and then compare it ot the cost of implementing this (having
libstdc++ and a few others in the archive). And make a real
investigation of the cost, and not take the words of a few guys who have
proven amply that they are not able to take a decision on technical
merits, if it goes against their hatefulness and private feud.

> I see no misstake in the whole procedure. You asked for advice, they
> voted, the outcome was quite clear, case closed for the ctte. Please
> respect the outcome of their vote, as you yourself asked for it.

Please reread the first bug closer of Bdale, and you will see there is
no technical reason at all, just a followup of debian behaving like
petty dictatorship, and kicking me out and banning me, just to silence
me, and in this way hide its shame.

> Please try to understand that you should accept their oppinion even
> though they didn't vote in favour for your wish. Such things happen, in
> Debian as well as in politics.

Well, if you provided a valid technical argumentation, weighing the pro
and contra points, and then taking a decision, then it would be
acceptable, but this is not this case, there was no technical decision,
but a decision based on behyind the scene lobyying, and influence, or
more likely because debian decided to go in a witch hunt against me, and
now that i have been lynched, you are unable to go by any other decision
other than continuing in your shameful ways.

So, i defy you to come up with a reasoned and argumented objective
discussion on the technical merit of having a libstdc++ .udeb package in
the archive, and once you have made that, then i will abide by whatever
decision you take. 

Is this too much to ask ? Are you not the "technical" committee, and not
the mafioso-like influence committee ? 

Sadly,

Sven Luther



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #120 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>
To: 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: more info ...
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:00:38 +0200
First, i wonder why i, as author of this bug, was not firwarded
discussion happening about this instead of first noticing there is
further action about this.

Second, about Bdale's comments :

  1) asking that the solution is implemented, without at least a hint
  that it will not be lost time is not nice. The degree of frustration
  generated by debian in such situations is a very bad thing, and debian
  is known for letting patches molder in the BTS, just look at this guy
  who wanted to provide TeX fixed packages on -vote for an example. or
  the X patch i provided some 4-5 years ago, which would have allowed to
  build out-of-tree X drivers, and was never applied, even though the
  patch was applied upstream, and only a single line patching of the
  debian specific stuff needed. It stayed unfixed during years, until
  Xorg made the patch obsolet.

  2) Second, asking for an existing implementation, before judging,
  shows a uther lack of imagination, or are there really any doubt that
  i (or others) will really be unable to provide a partimage .udeb, or
  do you in any way fail to understand what a partimage .udeb will bring
  as functionality ? If this is the case, i guess one could question
  your ability to be part of the technical committee :)

  3) in fall 2005, i was the responsible of a praktikum (or whatever you
  call it in english), where xavier oswald was working on this for his
  studies. This was when we first faced the stubborn opposition of the
  d-i team, and the lack of support made us change the plan to a
  reimplementation of gparted, whose code now is moldering away in svn
  repo at alioth, and was never used. 

  4) During the extremadura g-i meeting, Both Attilio and Davide, the
  two motors of the graphical installer work, told me how interesting
  the idea of having a partimage .udeb was, and how this could make the
  resulting d-i much more useful than just to install debian. I am
  unsure if they would chose to repeat these words today, given the hate
  and FUD campaign against me by the d-i leadership, and how Frans
  threatened Eddy Petrisor for daring say that the current partitioner
  in d-i is less than perfect, but the facts remain that others than
  just me may find it useful. I am sure even yourself would find a use
  for such a tool.

  5) it is a bit hypocrit to tell me now i should bring a proof of
  concept, after i have been electronically stoned, and left bleeding on
  the road-side, and have all my technical rights, and email posting
  ability be removed. You had over a year to ask for this, yet there was
  no interest in this from your part.

  6) one of the path envisioned by the debian-embedded folks (emdebian,
  and others) was to use .udebs and the d-i framework to build embedded
  systems, since technically, both could benefit from the synergy of
  this. I know that even Raphael Hertzog did some payed job, where he
  gave his customers a semi-embedded system based on .udeb and d-i
  technology, so i guess others have thought of this also. I doubt
  Raphael would admit this today though, given the d-i vendetta and the
  electronic blood bath that followed, though.

Again, there is little cost in having a .udeb libstdc++ packages, and it
will pave the way to many new options and oportunities.

The conservativeness of Debian is what made people go away, and look for
out-of-debian solution, and was one of the funding reasons of Ubuntu, so
give a technical reasoning, and have a bit more technical vision, than
cathering to the worse political lobbying and shady dealings, which is
what debian has been privilegying these past days.

Sadly,

Sven Luther



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #125 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>
To: control@bugs.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: reoppening, ...
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:01:25 +0200
reopen 367709
thanks



Bug closed, send any further explanations to Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> Request was from Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:06:49 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Bug reopened, originator not changed. Request was from Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:06:52 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #134 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>
To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:32:53 +0100
Bdale Garbee writes ("Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb"):
> I hereby call for an immediate TC vote on the question of whether a
> libstdc++ udeb should be created to support the use of C++ in the 
> debian-installer environment, as requested by bug #367709.
> 
> The udeb structure was invented for debian-installer, and to date 
> Debian has not supported the use of udebs for any other purpose.
> In the discussion on this issue recorded in the bug log and on our 
> list, it seems clear that the d-i team does not want C++ support in 
> the installer environment, and the gcc maintainer is reluctant to 
> build and support udebs that the installer team doesn't need.  The 
> question before us is therefore whether to support or overrule the 
> developer responsible for our gcc packaging, and the developers 
> involved in the debian-installer project.

I'm reluctant to rule on this now in this way.  Mainly, because in the
future somebody (other than Sven) might come up with a good reason to
do a libstdc++ udeb and then people will think we have forbidden it
(or advised against it).

I don't think we have really had a proper technical discussion about
this - at least, not one that's finished.  Until we have one, I don't
think we should make this decision.  That discussion would need the
services of someone competent and useful to champion the `pro'
arguments, but at the moment we don't have any such person available.

So I would prefer my previous resolution instead of this one - but I
didn't get enough support for that.

Regarding this resolution, I'd like my vote as follows to be recorded
although the outcome is no longer in doubt (and the committee seems to
disagree with me).

> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [ 3 ] Choice 1: a libstdc++ udeb should be created as per bug #367709
> [ 2 ] Choice 2: a libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709
> [ 1 ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

If anyone other than Sven comes up with a good use for a libstdc++
udeb, despite the problems described by others here, then I would like
people to give it all due consideration.  If the situation changes I'm
sure that the d-i team and if necessary the committee are capable of
changing their minds.

Ian.



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #139 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
To: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>
Cc: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:34:48 +0200
* Ian Jackson (ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk) [070625 19:03]:
> If anyone other than Sven comes up with a good use for a libstdc++
> udeb, despite the problems described by others here, then I would like
> people to give it all due consideration.  If the situation changes I'm
> sure that the d-i team and if necessary the committee are capable of
> changing their minds.

Well, if anyone would come up with a good use that might be enough for
me to reconsider it really. :)

For me, the issue is: We don't have a real use case up to now. Nobody is
forbidden to generate a libstdc++-udeb, and show a real use case.
Integrating things on ftp.d.o isn't the first step in development these
days. And if we have that case, one might want to convince the
maintainer first. If all that fails, I don't see that one must not make
another call to the technical committee.

But it is not enough to get a overruling (at least from me) to point out
theoretical advantages that nobody in Debian is intending to work on or
use. And also, I doubt udebs are the intended thing for embedded - of
course, if we get some real show cases from embedded people, that might
make me change my opinion.

Regarding further discussion: I think this bug report has been open long
enough now, and sometimes I prefer to get things done - we don't have
"nobody is allowed to open a case with udebs again" as part of the
resolution, but of course I would prefer if a new request would only be
opened in case there is a proven usecase, i.e. the facts have changed.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #144 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>
To: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>
Cc: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:43:30 -0400
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:32:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> If anyone other than Sven comes up with a good use for a libstdc++
> udeb, despite the problems described by others here, then I would like
> people to give it all due consideration.  If the situation changes I'm
> sure that the d-i team and if necessary the committee are capable of
> changing their minds.

Could someone assert why "dependency of a potential partimage udeb" is
not a "good use"?



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #149 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
To: Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>
Cc: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>, debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:51:35 +0200
* Clint Adams (schizo@debian.org) [070625 21:43]:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 05:32:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If anyone other than Sven comes up with a good use for a libstdc++
> > udeb, despite the problems described by others here, then I would like
> > people to give it all due consideration.  If the situation changes I'm
> > sure that the d-i team and if necessary the committee are capable of
> > changing their minds.
> 
> Could someone assert why "dependency of a potential partimage udeb" is
> not a "good use"?

What is the use case? Installer? - the installer people didn't want it.
(Apart from the word "potential")


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #154 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <owner@bugs.debian.org>, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>, 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Processed: There is still no valid reason to close this bug.
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:47:59 +0200
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 12:36:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 10:35:48AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > If you continue opening this bug report, I'm have to ask
> > > owner@bugs to refuse you access to the control interface.
> > 
> > Yeah, always has debian replied with menaces and exclusion to my
> > valid points.
> > 
> > Remember your engagement to the social contract, "WE WONT HIDE
> > PROBLEMS", which some may argue are related only to bug reports, but
> > if you start even shutting down the BTS, you won't have even this
> > excsue to violating the BTS.
> 
> The bug above has had its state set by a decision of the CTTE. If you
> disagree with their decision, then your only other recourse is to
> either convince the CTTE to reconsider their decision, or override the
> CTTE by GR. Neither course of action involves reopening this bug.

Don, ...

How can i get the ctte to reconsider their decision, if they don't even
speak to me ? If they didn't even judge it necessary to inform me of the
vote being going on, if they didn't give ;e a chance to refresh the
argumentation which was ignored since over a year, and the data they
judged on was solely the words of the d-i team, who has clearly been
shown as more than suspect and overshadowed by their hatred and vendetta
against me.

> The bug will remain present in the bts, and can be unarchived at a
> later date to allow this to occur.

Sure, but since i am the root of all evil, and nobody ever speaks to me
except to threaten and menace me, this will do me much good.

> Further attempts to modify the state of this bug contrary to the
> maintainer or CTTE's wishes without the intervention of a GR
> authorized by project developers will result in the restriction of the
> control interface to the BTS.

Yes, right, so, i get threatened, and judged even before people read a
word of what i write, it is only after hours of discussion that people
will dare to admit, that maybe, just maybe, i might have some point of
justification of my action, and in the meanwhile, folk bashed me
unpunished on #debian-devel, and i got loads of patronizing and outright
insulting mails from asorted folks.

Don, the first bug closer was :

  Neither of these two Tech Committee requests remain relevant.  I am
  therefore closing these bugs with no further action taken.

To which idid what every sensible DD would have done, what would be the
duty of every DD even, and reopened the bug. You would have done the
same in my place.

You know also well enough, that if anyone other than myself had done
this, then you would not be so harsh.

What is the matter with you guys, qare you so guilt ridden by how you
handled me that it so pains you to even try to speak to me before going
balistic and resorting to the most heavy artillery to slap me down,
while a few simple reasonable words would have been much more
constructive ?

Yes, as with the events leading to my expulsion, the events around this
show again that debian is at fault in this whole mess, and is too
arrogant to ever admit it misbheaved, while it lets everyone be
insulting and caloumnious all over the mailing lists and irc channels.

Sadly,

Sven Luther



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #157 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>
To: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>
Cc: Debian Bug Tracking System <owner@bugs.debian.org>, 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Processed: There is still no valid reason to close this bug.
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:23:35 -0700
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Further attempts to modify the state of this bug contrary to the
> > maintainer or CTTE's wishes without the intervention of a GR
> > authorized by project developers will result in the restriction of
> > the control interface to the BTS.
> 
> Yes, right, so, i get threatened, and judged even before people read a
> word of what i write,

It doesn't matter what you write or have written or who you are. The
people who are allowed to have the final say on the state of a bug in
a package is well defined and has been explained before. In this case,
the CTTE has the final say on the state of this bug, irregardless of
whather their decision is correct or incorrect.

> To which idid what every sensible DD would have done, what would be
> the duty of every DD even, and reopened the bug. You would have done
> the same in my place.

The issue is not the original reopening of the bug; the issue is the
continued reopening of the bug. Since the desire of the people in
charge of the bugs in the ctte package has been made manifest, it
should be respected.

See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/12/msg00303.html for a
relatively recent explication of the control@ policy, and what will be
done in cases of abuse.

In any event, now that all parties to this bug are once again aware of
the policy, I look forward to not having to address this issue again.


Don Armstrong

-- 
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
 -- Jeremy S. Anderson

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #162 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <owner@bugs.debian.org>, 367709@bugs.debian.org, Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>
Subject: Re: Processed: There is still no valid reason to close this bug.
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:36:29 +0200
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 02:23:35PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Further attempts to modify the state of this bug contrary to the
> > > maintainer or CTTE's wishes without the intervention of a GR
> > > authorized by project developers will result in the restriction of
> > > the control interface to the BTS.
> > 
> > Yes, right, so, i get threatened, and judged even before people read a
> > word of what i write,
> 
> It doesn't matter what you write or have written or who you are. The

If thqt was true, then i would have no complaint, yet it is evident by
bdale original bug closer that this is not the case.

> people who are allowed to have the final say on the state of a bug in
> a package is well defined and has been explained before. In this case,
> the CTTE has the final say on the state of this bug, irregardless of
> whather their decision is correct or incorrect.

Ok, i have a problem with that, and this is why i was espulsed from
debian. I have trouble accepting unfair decisions, based on personal
feud, or with only the slightest of technical content.

> > To which idid what every sensible DD would have done, what would be
> > the duty of every DD even, and reopened the bug. You would have done
> > the same in my place.
> 
> The issue is not the original reopening of the bug; the issue is the
> continued reopening of the bug. Since the desire of the people in

Oh, come on please, you know that you guys have been losing much more
time on this issue than anything i could have done. I have not touched
the bug since i spoke with andreas barth on irc, and yet you all seem so
intent of continuing to harrass me with this.

On the same way, there is no response to the technical issues i
mentioned, which cast a real suspision on the honestity of your
intentions.

Please stop being assholes who only follow the rules, recognize that the
decision fo the tech committee didn't take into account more recent
facts, and was hurried to get the issue quickly forgotten, and respond
to my technical points. Is this so difficult to ask, that you have to go
into threatening, and day long exchange of email terrorism ? 

> charge of the bugs in the ctte package has been made manifest, it
> should be respected.
> 
> See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/12/msg00303.html for a
> relatively recent explication of the control@ policy, and what will be
> done in cases of abuse.

What abuse ? You just make up random rules, which you modify at will
like the DAMS have done in the expulsion procedure, and then read out
the sentence, without even trying to honestly discuss the matter.

Again you showed that you are not interested in human and decent and
honourable behaviour, but in going after me and punishing me for not
being subservient enough.

> In any event, now that all parties to this bug are once again aware of
> the policy, I look forward to not having to address this issue again.

Well, you bring it up again and again. I repeat, i have not touched this
bug since i spoke to Andreas on irc (in which he was not really very
open and curteous, but rather threatening), and the only thing i have
done since is respond to the continuous menace and harrasment of you
guys.

If you had taken even a fraction of the effort you lost on this, not
counting the time you made me loss, reading the technical argumentation
i provided in my last mail to the bug report, it would have been much
more constructive.

But no, you prefer showing your might and bureaucratic harrasment, and
bending rules to your advantage, and in general bullying the feeble and
hurt. 

So glorious a way to solve problem, no wonder both ian and anthony tried
to create a social comitte able to deal punishements, but not solve
issues.

Sad and disgusted,

Sven Luther



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #167 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>
To: 367709@bugs.debian.org, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
Subject: Reply to Andreas, ...
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:14:11 +0200
Hi Andreas,

First, i think it would be courteous of your part to mail
<bug>-submitter, or CC me on activity of this bug. Probably better to CC
me, since i don't remember if i submitted the bug with my @debian
affress, which naturally is no a dead one (still disgusted about this
one, a one way redirection would have been much more logical and hurt
nobody, but hey ...).

Just a few points :

  1) at the time this was discussed, it was clear that any patch would
  have been refused, not out of technical ground, but as animosity
  against me. As thus i was very wary to do even a single bit of work
  which would be wasted afterward. Just look at all the work Xavier
  Oswald did in reimplementing gparted in C at the demand of the d-i
  team, and look what has changed in the d-i partitioner since then.
  Frans even threatened Eddy Petrisor when he dared make some critics.

  2) using .udebs for embedded work was considered around that time.
  Raphael Hertzog even used it in a paying job on some semi-embedded
  device years ago, and it makes perfect logical sense. Ideally, as
  Anthony said, there would be a spliting of the .udeb archive, with the
  support libraries on one side (libc, libparted, eject and so on), and
  the d-i specific parts in the d-i repository. But you cannot fault the
  embdeed folk to not have gone this way, given the reaction of the d-i
  folk, who fought a war of control over the .udebs, and which is what
  started the mess i was involved in, because they didn't want to
  relinquish control over the kernel .udebs, which have their much more
  logical place in the kernel team.

  3) about the bug open status, first i have not touched it since you
  spoke (err threatened) to me the other day, and it is not my fault
  that my mails seem to reach the BTS with an important lag (near a full
  24 hours). I noticed that the technical committee has not judged on
  recent facts, the bug was untouched since over a year, and maybe you
  could have shown concern about not letting a bug report open so long
  earlier, and the few mails i saw of the TC where not really examining
  technical points, but mostly based on the opinion of the d-i team of
  back then, which nobody doubts anymore that it has been highly dubious
  in his impartiality and technical merit. As thus, if you want to close
  it, fine with me, but i should not learn about it in the bug closer,
  and you should at least try to address the technical points i raised.

  4) as a proven use-case, i defy you to show me that a partimage
  capability in d-i or in some non-d-i splitoff, and thus easy and nice
  ghost like functionality is not useful. Davide and Attilio, the main
  g-i developpers, told me at extremadura how important and interesting
  this would have been, and when the issue was explained (not by me
  because i am banned from almost everywhere), many people mentioned the
  interest. The comparative cost of having a libstdc++ .udeb, especially
  since at that point (more than a year and a half ago) we proposed to
  provide the patch for it, and the other c++ library maintainers which
  where needed for gparted where already ready to add the patches. So,
  the comparative cost of having a libstdc++ .udeb is evidently low.

  5) This is d-i development, where the build system and the fact that
  we use mostly netbooting for testing, and the fact that d-i supports
  only a single .udeb source, makes playing with out-of-debian packages
  a real pain.

  6) from ian's word, it is clear that the request was dismissed because
  i proposed it, and if anyone else but me showed interest, they would
  give the issue all due consideration. This only reinforces my initial
  assesment that the TC did not judge on this on technical reasons,
  based on real facts. Furthermore, only two of the 4 votes bdale
  mentioned reached the bug report, so it appears to me that the
  committee did not act transparently in this, or that some mails got
  lost. Again, what would it have cost to speak to me about this and ask
  for a renewed argumentation for this stale bug ? It is not my fault
  you didn't handle it in a timely fashion, you have only yourself to
  blame for that.

Sadly,

Sven Luther





Reply sent to Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>:
You have taken responsibility. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #172 received at 367709-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>
To: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>, 367709-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Closing this one for the last time
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:01:04 +0100
As previously discussed, the state of this bug has been decided by the
appropriate people:

The relevant maintainers decided according to 3.1(1) that they did not
agree with the request.  Technical Committee have decided not to
exercise their power in 6.1(4) to overrule this decision.

I am therefore closing this bug report.  Please do not reopen it.

Ian.



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #177 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>
To: 367709@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: Bug#367709 closed by Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> (Closing this one for the last time)
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:37:21 +0200
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:03:02AM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
> #367709: requesting libstdc++ .udeb in order to produce c++ based images based on d-i technology (but not d-i).,
> which was filed against the tech-ctte package.
> 
> It has been closed by Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>.
> 
> Their explanation is attached below.  If this explanation is
> unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate
> message then please contact Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> by replying
> to this email.
> 
> Debian bug tracking system administrator
> (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Orange vous informe que cet  e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail.
> Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte.
> 

> From: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>
> Message-ID: <18048.54736.729549.700963@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk>
> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:01:04 +0100
> To: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>, 367709-done@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: Closing this one for the last time
> X-Mailer: VM 7.03 under Emacs 19.34.1
> 
> As previously discussed, the state of this bug has been decided by the
> appropriate people:
> 
> The relevant maintainers decided according to 3.1(1) that they did not
> agree with the request.  Technical Committee have decided not to
> exercise their power in 6.1(4) to overrule this decision.
> 
> I am therefore closing this bug report.  Please do not reopen it.

Fine, i will not contest this, but it is still regretable for the
credibility of the technical committee that :

  1) you did not chose to inform that you where going to have a vote,
  and judged on stale information dating from last year.

  2) you responded to none of the technical points i raised in your
  hurry to burry this request.

so, as with the rest of the debian governance, all those rules and
procedure are nothing but justification for decisions taken by the whim
of a select few without any semblance of fairness and technical
motivation.

Sad to see debian fall so low,

Sven Luther



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #182 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>
To: 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: [elendil@planet.nl: Requesting new udebs (was: Bug#430023: please add gnu-fdisk-udeb and gnu-cfdisk-udeb)]
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:46:40 +0200
Here, you can see again the result of your decision, and the stranghold
frans pop has over the .udebs.

This is not something which you should have encouraged, as it stiffles
progress and innovation.

And i was in absolute no way involved in the below, but let it not be
said that i am the only one seeing problems with Frans Pop, as was said.

Really sad that debian prefered to support a private vendetta over
technical excellence ...

Sven Luther

----- Forwarded message from Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> -----

From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
To: debian-boot@lists.debian.org
Subject: Requesting new udebs (was: Bug#430023: please add gnu-fdisk-udeb and gnu-cfdisk-udeb)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:23:55 +0200
Message-Id: <200707130223.56146.elendil@planet.nl>

On Friday 13 July 2007 01:48, Frans Pop wrote:
> I was quite surprised to see the two new udebs from your source package
> gnu-fdisk appear. Mainly because there has not been any discussion by
> Robert about adding them with the rest of the D-I team and the D-I
> release managers in particular.

Let me make this clear once and for all: there should be NO requests filed 
for adding new udebs to existing Debian packages without discussing it 
first on the debian-boot mailing list (which also means that only asking 
on IRC is not enough).

This also goes for udebs that are not intended to be used in Debian 
Installer itself, but are e.g. for debian-edu or live CD or similar.

The only exception is if a D-I porter needs an *architecture specific* 
udeb, but even then at least announcing it on the list is very much 
appreciated.

The main reasons for this are:
- the size of installation images should not be increased without
  discussion
- every new udeb may need to be excluded in debian-cd
- migration for all udebs needs to be consciously managed (which mostly
  falls to the D-I release manager)
- because of the previous point, having a udeb is not always enjoyable
  for maintainers of regular packages because their packages may get
  blocked from transitioning to testing; we should therefore not have
  unused or trivial udebs

Remember, and this was recently affirmed by the Technical Committee, that 
the debian-installer section of the repository is "owned" by the D-I 
team.

Adding new udebs is a fairly major change. It seems only reasonable that 
people inform/consult their colleagues in the team before requesting 
them.

We are of course work willing to work with anybody who wants to extend the 
installer (and history shows that we do), but only if it is done in the 
proper spirit of collaboration, and springing new udebs on the team is 
_not_ a good example of proper collaboration.

Cheers,
FJP



----- End forwarded message -----



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org:
Bug#367709; Package tech-ctte. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Technical Committee <debian-ctte@lists.debian.org>, ajt@debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #187 received at 367709@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sven Luther <sven@powerlinux.fr>
To: 367709@bugs.debian.org
Subject: [elendil@planet.nl: Bug#430023: please add gnu-fdisk-udeb and gnu-cfdisk-udeb]
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:44:04 +0200
Hi Technical Committee member, ...

Notice the below case, which is very very linked to the request for a
libstdc++ .udeb.

It is very strange to me, to see the stronghold the d-i folk have over
the .udeb packages, while the mere existence of a .udeb does not in any
way mean it will be used by the debian-installer, and thus renders bogus
the main argument against having a libstdc++ .udeb, and blocks progress
and innovation in areas other than d-i.

Please consider this the next time you have to judge a complaint
concerning .udeb packages, and note the immobilism and conservatism of
Frans and the d-i leadership on these issues. If not for them, we could
have a nicer graphical partitioner for d-i and a ghost like feature by
now.

Also notice that even Colin Watson tried out the gparted route in
ubuntu, which implied using a libstdc++ .udeb or some other mean, even
though he didn't like the experiment, but hey, we should be producing an
open and free operating system, and leaving the door open to
experimentation is an important part of it.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
----- Forwarded message from Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> -----

From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
To: 430023@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#430023: please add gnu-fdisk-udeb and gnu-cfdisk-udeb
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:48:17 +0200
Cc: debian-boot@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org,
	430023-submitter@bugs.debian.org
Message-Id: <200707130148.18042.elendil@planet.nl>

Hello Julien,

I was quite surprised to see the two new udebs from your source package 
gnu-fdisk appear. Mainly because there has not been any discussion by 
Robert about adding them with the rest of the D-I team and the D-I 
release managers in particular. As we do always try to limit the size of 
the installer, having udebs for which we do not have an actual use-case 
is not very desirable.

Of course, this is not really your problem, but more a problem within the 
D-I team. For now however, it does mean that your package is blocked from 
migrating to testing [1] until we have discussed the need for the udebs 
in the team.

It's up to you if you'd prefer to remove the udebs again for now, but my 
suggestion would be to wait for the result of the discussion on the 
debian-boot list. As far as I'm concerned it is up to Robert to initiate 
that discussion by explaining his reasons for requesting them.

Cheers,
Frans Pop
(former, but still acting D-I Release Manager)

[1] Note that _all_ packages that have udebs are blocked from migrating 
automatically. This is not really something special for your package. But 
it will require an OK from the D-I release manager before the package 
will be allowed to migrate.



----- End forwarded message -----



Bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org> to internal_control@bugs.debian.org. (Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:26:49 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Wed Apr 23 17:38:47 2014; Machine Name: beach.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.