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

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

On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:

> Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> writes:

>> 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

        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 [1].

> FWIW, this has also been done for past releases (see, for example,
> #211765).

        In the past, we passed GR's to allow us to ship with known DFSG
 violations: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004

        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 <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: