Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 10:55 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
> > ,----
> > | http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007
> > | General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
> > `----
> > To get a special dispensation for lenny.
> I think this would be insane. It smacks of the nonsense of the US
> Congress extending copyright over and over again, always for a "limited
> term", but such that the terms just never actually expire.
According to , we are talking about 13 bugs.
5 were opened in August
2 were opened in September
7 were opened in October
Thanks to those who hunted those bugs (Robert and Ben), and those who
submitted patches (Robert and Ben).
> I object very strongly to the feeling that I am being held hostage by
> developers who will not fix the bug, and then protest "emergency! we
> must release! no delay! we'll do it next time!" and then sit on their
> hands again for another go-round. The solution is to refuse to play
> along, and to say, "hey, you had two years; we're just going to wait
> until you fix the bug."
None of the "ignore-lenny" bugs have been opened for two years, right ?
How can we expect magazines to reserve their cover-page for us, if they
have no clue about when we release ?
I'm not saying it's fine to violate SC, I'm just the kind of guy who
accept some compromises (temporary compromises here).
May be we should only allow such "ignore-lenny" violation, if N+1 (i.e
2.6.27) has the guilty feature removed in experimental?
BTW, Kudos to the D-I team who did an excellent job handling non-free
firmware in Lenny. A user is prompted for non-free firmware. That's a
very good way to reverse the "not supported" paradigm: As far as a user
is concerned, it is not Linux that doesn't support "my" device, it is
"my" device that require a damned non-free driver.