It's not clear to me why tech-ctte discussions seem to not get cc'ed to the appropriate bug number properly. See also the discussion for the pcmcia-cs bug, much of which happened on the list rather than in the bug report. On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 01:34:26AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > But, the idea in the policy manual is that a `must' is a rule for > which there are not expected to be exceptions; it doesn't touch on how > damaging a breach of the rule is. Uh, this is completely incorrect. See policy section 1.1, Scope. In this manual, the words _must_, _should_ and _may_, and the adjectives _required_, _recommended_ and _optional_, are used to distinguish the significance of the various guidelines in this policy document. Packages that do not conform to the guidelines denoted by _must_ (or _required_) will generally not be considered acceptable for the Debian distribution. Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by _should_ (or _recommended_) will generally be considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a package unsuitable for distribution. Guidelines denoted by _may_ (or _optional_) are truly optional and adherence is left to the maintainer's discretion. The number of times this gets misinterpreted is an obvious indication that it was a mistake to do things via policy in this way, but it's nevertheless the way it is for now. > Part of the dispute seems to stem from this discrepancy. The bug in > question is agreed by everyone to be a violation of a `must' in > policy, but not to make the package unsuitable for release. I'm sorry I don't have a catchy way of phrasing this, but it *is* a bug that makes the package unsuitable for release, it just so happens that it's going to get released as is now anyway. > serious > is a severe violation of Debian policy or any other problem, > which makes the package unsuitable for release. Absolutely unconditionally _no_. This leaves the definition of serious a matter of judgement on behalf of the submitter which makes managing the release an order of magnitude more difficult. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
Attachment:
pgpXF1NgsoBzv.pgp
Description: PGP signature