Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:56:40PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:20:50AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:44:49PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > I've cc:ed our stable release manager, ftp-masters, and the security
> > > team, in the hopes that they'll offer some insight into their
> > > understanding of their own responsibilities for sarge if this GR passes.
>
> > My assumption would be that we would continue to support the packages in
> > sarge. If the Social Contract somehow prevented us from doing that, would
> > it not also (directly) prevent us from continuing to distribute the
> > problematic packages?
>
> I agree that the implications are probably the same for providing
> ongoing security updates as they are for continuing to distribute the
> packages as-is; I would just like to hear from those responsible for
> both that they agree about what the implications under this particular
> GR *are*. Otherwise, I definitely think the GR needs revising.
I guess I'm punting then. Iff we can agree that we can continue to
distribute the release as Debian, then we can continue to distribute
security updates for Debian.
Given that from time to time we find that there were oversights as far as
freeness, and we correct them without purging them from releases that we
continue to distribute, the existing doctrine seems to be that the release
could stand.
--
- mdz
Reply to: