Bug#535645: I strongly suggest...

[Jaime Ochoa Malagón]

Dear ctte,

We, the debian amd64 users should be able to pick our own poison, I really prefer to have ia32-libs-tools because this work far more close to debian way of package manage, the ia32-libs is an incomplete lazy solution with a huge package that needs the maintainer to update a small part of it (any library in the bundle) exposing us to security risks by example, any way, the work done by Goswin has been proved and is working obviously needs maintain to being better but Goswin is doing a great job.

Why loose a great package that's helps to use practically any ia32 program just by a political reason?
The ftpmaster should complain about the package, even moving it to experimental, but not, by any reason only remove it...

And finally if my memory is not failing Goswin was the maintainer of ia32-libs and work in a better solution...

ia32-libs-tools is a great tool and I hope we can get it back...

--
Perhaps the depth of love can be calibrated by the number of different selves that are actively involved in a given relationship.

Carl Sagan (Contact)

Jaime Ochoa Malagón
Arquitecto de Soluciones
Cel: [phone]

[Russ Allbery-2]

Jaime Ochoa Malagón <chptma@...> writes:

> We, the debian amd64 users should be able to pick our own poison, I
> really prefer to have ia32-libs-tools because this work far more close
> to debian way of package manage, the ia32-libs is an incomplete lazy
> solution with a huge package that needs the maintainer to update a small
> part of it (any library in the bundle) exposing us to security risks by
> example, any way, the work done by Goswin has been proved and is working
> obviously needs maintain to being better but Goswin is doing a great
> job.

> Why loose a great package that's helps to use practically any ia32
> program just by a political reason?

This sort of message is not likely to be helpful.  Technical committee
decisions are not a popularity contest, and there have been specific
objections to the design of the package previously discussed in this
thread.  It is not correct to state that the only issues here are
political.

If you have new information not previously mentioned in the thread to add,
please do, but statements of support without additional information should
not influence technical commitee decisions.

Please remember that the technical committee is not being asked whether or
not the design of ia32-libs-tools is useful, but rather to overturn a
project delegate decision.  This is a higher bar to meet.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Goswin von Brederlow-2]

Russ Allbery <rra@...> writes:

> Jaime Ochoa Malagón <chptma@...> writes:
>
>> We, the debian amd64 users should be able to pick our own poison, I
>> really prefer to have ia32-libs-tools because this work far more close
>> to debian way of package manage, the ia32-libs is an incomplete lazy
>> solution with a huge package that needs the maintainer to update a small
>> part of it (any library in the bundle) exposing us to security risks by
>> example, any way, the work done by Goswin has been proved and is working
>> obviously needs maintain to being better but Goswin is doing a great
>> job.
>
>> Why loose a great package that's helps to use practically any ia32
>> program just by a political reason?
>
> This sort of message is not likely to be helpful.  Technical committee
> decisions are not a popularity contest, and there have been specific
> objections to the design of the package previously discussed in this
> thread.  It is not correct to state that the only issues here are
> political.

Correct. There so far is no stated issue with ia32-libs-tools at
all. So far there has only been speculation, as Steve pointed out.

So far there has been no reason given to uphold the ftp-master
decision other than "they made it".

On the other hand I think point 4 of the social contract is relevant
here:

| 4. Our priorities are our users and free software
|
| We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
| community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
| will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
| kinds of computing environments.

Will you let yourself be guided by the users need for ia32-libs-tools
to run 32bit software comfortably where ia32-libs is insufficient?

MfG
        Goswin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Russ Allbery-2]

Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@...> writes:

> Correct. There so far is no stated issue with ia32-libs-tools at all. So
> far there has only been speculation, as Steve pointed out.

I do not agree with this statement.

> On the other hand I think point 4 of the social contract is relevant
> here:

This is even less helpful than the message to which I replied.  I
guarantee that this style of argument will have absolutely no effect on my
opinion in a technical committee discussion.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...