Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?
On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Ben Finney <email@example.com> writes:
>> I would think at least a meaningful justification in the bug report is
> 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
What does "formal" mean here? And the fact that other
distributions play fast and loose with shipping non-fre stuff should
not be an excuse for Debian to start violating the foundation
documents, so whether or not Ubuintu ships non-free drivers is not
something that Debian can point to to violate the DFSG.
> 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 .
> FWIW, this has also been done for past releases (see, for example,
In the past, we passed GR's to allow us to ship with known DFSG
Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
trying to follow the social contract? Is releasing on schedule more
important than the SC?
Arithmetic: An obscure art no longer practiced in the world's developed
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C