Re: Decision GFDL
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Richard Braakman <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
> > > wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the
> > > manuals out now.
> > I don't mean to pick on you, I've just seen a number of similar
> > statements.
> > I hope people realize that the release team is saying "This is not
> > release critical", and not "This is not a bug". I had a terrible
> > time trying to get people to understand the difference, when I
> > was release manager :)
> I didn't realize that the release manager could decide to ignore the
> Social Contract if it is inconvenient. A more appropriate way to fix
> it would be to simply eliminate the documentation. People could then
> file bugs complaining about the lack of documentation even in
> non-free, and these bugs may or may not hold up the release.
Weirdness. The appropriate reply to what you said is exactly the
paragraph that you quoted from me. What am I supposed to say now?
You do realize that we are distributing GFDL manuals as part of Debian
right now? The release manager isn't "deciding" that any more than
anyone else is. If you must point a finger at someone, point it at
the package maintainers.
What the release manager has decided is that the release must not be
delayed for this issue. I think that's a prudent decision, considering
that it's already taken two years and there's no guarantee of a quick
It may or may not be relevant that woody already has some GFDL manuals
in it. I can't decide, myself. It does seem silly to consider a bug
"release-critical" if the current stable version of the package has
the exact same problem.