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

Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor

Rich Walker <rw@shadow.org.uk> writes:

> Actually, I don't want a different set of criteria. As a user, I am
> concerned that Debian is in danger of having a thousand "CPU
> monitors"[1] all with RC bugs. A process for restricting addition of
> semi-duplicate packages might reduce workloads all round, and improve
> quality of installed packages.

That's not a problem for our procedures.  Optional packages with RC
bugs do not hold up the release; they simply get dropped.

> > My concern is that Saudi Arabia and China don't get to tell us what
> > our criteria are, and I would oppose any criterion that amounts to
> > "give China a veto".  Your proposal allows China a veto in some cases,
> > and this makes it unreasonable to me.
> Not quite. I simply suggest that *in the absence of any technical reason
> why*, and *in the presence of a social reason why not*, it would be
> polite to adopt "why not". 

Your proposal gives China a veto *in some cases*.  I think it should
get a veto *in no cases*.  Regardless, the discussion belongs on


Reply to: