On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 21:00 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]: > > | 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special > | preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for > | licensing, copyright, and general packaging issues as normal. > | > | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. > | > | 2. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special > | preconditions, save the RC bug indicated below. Ftpmaster should > | perform standard NEW processing for licensing, copyright, and general > | packaging issues as normal. with the addition of an RC bug filed > | immediately to preventing normal transition for a period of at least a > | month after traversing NEW. > | > | During this period, additional RC (or non-RC) bugs should be filed by > | interested parties, and updated qmail packages fixing these bugs > | should be uploaded as usual. After a month, the RM or the maintainer > | can continue to decide that the package is not acceptable for release > | at their discretion, as happens for any package. [If the RM or > | maintainer don't reaffirm the transition blocking bug, the ctte will > | close the transition blocking bug.] > | > | Qmail is subject to the normal removal process for packages. > | > | 3. Qmail is to be allowed in to the archive after a patch to resolve > | the delayed bounces issue, where mail sent to an invalid recipient > | which a reasonable MTA is capable of knowing is invalid is accepted > | instead of being rejected at RCPT TO time. After upload, the process > | outlined in option #2 will take effect. > | > | 4. Qmail is not to be allowed into Debian. > | > | 5. Further discussion. 12354 Bdale
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part