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

Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> writes:
> Have I missed some announcement that DFSG violations don't matter for
> the release of ‘lenny’?

No, because they generally matter.

> I ask because a whole lot of bug reports of DFSG violations have been
> tagged ‘lenny-ignore’ without explanation:
> and probably others I've missed.

The full list of bugs tagged lenny-ignore is available here:

> Should these tags be removed?


> I would think at least a meaningful justification in the bug report is
> required

Well, apply common sense. In all of the bugs I recently tagged, the DFSG
violation is usually a formal problem, something that other
distributions and upstream don't consider a problem at all. While fixing
these issues is and should be a goal of Debian, it's hardly something
that can be done in the last few weeks before releasing. The drawbacks
of delaying the release indefinitely for these bugs are much greater
than releasing with these minor DFSG violations [1].

FWIW, this has also been done for past releases (see, for example,


 [1] Yeah, I'm waiting to get toasted for daring to say "minor" here.
BOFH #290:
The CPU has shifted, and become decentralized.

Attachment: pgpIzS04xw68J.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: