[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ITP seahorse

On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 07:17:29PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 12:49:45PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
> > On 2000-05-23 at 13:26 +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 03:39:29AM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
> > > > Is there any Policy objection to calling these CDs "US-exportable" and
> > > > "International and US domestic use (not US-exportable)" instead of
> > > > "US" and "non-US" as is commonly said?  I cannot find anything in Policy
> > > > which explicity names the CD images, as opposed to parts of the archive.
> > 
> > Clearly, it is Anne Bezemer who actually names the images.  The question
> > is: who has authority to choose the names?  I don't think there is any
> > Policy implication, as I said, but a consensus here would be useful.  
> > Raphael Hertzog, as the maintainer of the debian-cd package, would also be
> > able to implement this as part of the software.
> I agree.  I think such labelling of the images themselves can only be
> positive for Debian.  Is there anyone who has any objections to this
> proposal?

I think more importantly we need criteria for what "Official" images are
when we release. The last run for test cycle 1 is a joke. They were
obviously not checked or tested, and we potentially have vendors out there
getting ready to use them, not to mention users who take up some valuable
b/w and gold platters.

I think images need to have detached sigs in order to be considered
official. Signed by the DPL, or Release Manager, either one should do. Can
we get some sort of *QUICK* and *OFFICIAL* consensus on this?


/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`     bcollins@debian.org  --  bcollins@openldap.org  --  bmc@visi.net     '

Reply to: