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

Re: releasing sarge

On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 10:33:56AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Given option B as the winner for the most
> recent election, and given current release policy
> (http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_release_policy.txt) I think we need
> to issue a statement along the lines of
>  We ratify the current release policy with the additional note that dfsg
>  issues which would have been ignored before GR 2004-003 shall be tagged
>  "sarge-ignore".

Uh, can we have something more descriptive than just "the current
release policy", and avoid dictating mechanism ("sarge-ignore") rather
than just policy? Also, some issues that would have been ignored before
GR 2004-003 might not have been related to these concerns, and may not
need to be ignored now.

Points to consider:

	* what stuff must and needn't comply with the DFSG, according to
	  the reverted social contract ("Debian will be 100% free
	  software") -- docs, firmware, data files for games, rfcs, ...?

	* what stuff must and needn't comply with the DFSG when the SC
	  is re-amended after sarge is release -- woody updates? sarge
	  updates? stuff in the new testing? new uploads?

Note that there isn't really a "current release policy" on this issue --
the policy before the original GR was clear, the policy since then has
been ambiguous at best, and more closely approximated non-existant.

_/\   <-- RM cap

Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: