Re: foo2zjs
On Fri, Oct 31 2008, Andreas Barth wrote:
> As this bug didn't get a decision from the release team yet, I'd propose
> the following decision by the tech ctte:
>
> 1. Currently, the submitter claims that the bug is serious, the
> maintainer don't think so, and there is no decision by the release team
> yet. So the current state of the bug isn't serious, but important. The
> maintainers should continue to feel free to adjust the bug severity
> according to their decisions (unless of course the release team decides
> to overrule them).
>
> 2. As per constitution, we (the tech ctte) only makes decision as last
> resort. So currently, the next step would be for anyone who disagrees
> with this bug not being release critical to ask the release team to
> review the decision and maybe overrule it.
>
> 3. If there is a release team decision, and someone is still unhappy
> enough then one could ask the tech ctte to overrule the release teams
> decision. However, until the overruling actually happens, the bugs
> state remains to stay the way the release team decided.
>
> tech ctte members, any opinion from you on that?
I concur. Additionally, I think I also agree with the
maintainer, i that this does not seem like a DFSG violation; the
package delivers free functionality relevant to at least one printer, a
maintainer has seen fit to package that functionality for main, and if
there is a script that the user can use to support hardware that
requires non-free software, we understand. The example script is not
central to the function for supported hardware, so it does not warrant
shipping the whole package in contrib.
This is, of course, a non-binding opinion at the moment.
manoj
--
"People don't form relationships, they take hostages." anon
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: