Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I object to a second round of this. I was ok with it once, as a
> > compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time
> > thing, to give time to actually *fix* the problem.
> Note that there is currently active upstream work to allow us to address
> these issues - some of the patches are present in 2.6.27, others are
> still in flight. This is a vast step forward on where we were with etch
> if we do decide to go down the route of releasing with exceptions again.
I think we have no need to go "down that route". We do not have to
support the hardware at all. That is an option. The fact that the
kernel maintainers would prefer a fancier thing is not the point.
We can simply not ship support for that hardware *at all*. That's
perfectly acceptable to me--even as a user of such hardware.
A patch to fix the bug--which is the inclusion of non-free things in
main--can be quickly and easily implemented. I'm oh-so-sorry if a
fancier fix is not available--but there has been plenty of time. I'm
not willing to see another release with non-free blobs in the kernel,
especially since it is really quite trivial to remove them.
> > We need the relevant maintainers to be told "your unwillingness to fix
> > this means we will not be able to release".
> I don't think that's a particularly constructive approach to take,
> especially not in a volunteer project.
I think that it is singularly non-constructive to see the maintainers of
packages regard compliance with our foundational documents as wishlist
items, and the release team regard such things as anything other than