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 <>;

Reported by: Sven Luther <>

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

Owned by:

Severity: normal

Done: Ian Jackson <>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log

Message #162 received at (full text, mbox):

Received: (at 367709) by; 25 Jun 2007 21:37:08 +0000
From Mon Jun 25 21:37:08 2007
Return-path: <>
Received: from ([])
	by with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1I2wF2-0000SB-KZ; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:37:02 +0000
Received: from ( [])
	by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB623C9D4;
	Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:36:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from sven by with local (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <>)
	id 1I2wEX-00089R-SP; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:36:29 +0200
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:36:29 +0200
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <>,, Don Armstrong <>
Subject: Re: Processed: There is still no valid reason to close this bug.
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
From: Sven Luther <>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=4.0 tests=none autolearn=no 
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

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 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

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

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

Sad and disgusted,

Sven Luther

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.

Debian bug tracking system administrator <>. Last modified: Sun Apr 20 23:55:55 2014; Machine Name:

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