On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:58:44AM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote: > SGI just released a new version of their file system XFS. Apparently, > this was due to legal concerns because the old version contained some > System V code [1]. My question is, how should I proceed as the > principal uploader of the Debian package kernel-patch-xfs. I will of > course upload the new version to unstable as soon as possible. Is it > justified to set the urgency to high, in order to speed up the > transition into testing? Is it necessary to prepare an update for > stable? Well, until recently, I would have said you should use an urgency of at least "medium" because you're fixing a release-critical issue. However, recent events have caused me to wonder if the Powers That Be within the project might consider that abuse of the urgency field, since non-DFSG-free code in main isn't considered a release-critical issue by the release manager, who also oversees the unstable-to-testing propagation process, and would likely be perturbed by efforts to circumvent the safeguards that are in place against packages propagating to testing too quickly. So, you've stumbled across a gulf between theory and practice. Clarification was promised over a month ago but it hasn't happened yet. I say go with your conscience and prepare to be flamed either way. -- G. Branden Robinson | It doesn't matter what you are Debian GNU/Linux | doing, emacs is always overkill. branden@debian.org | -- Stephen J. Carpenter http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature