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

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

Hash: SHA1

On 20-10-2008 19:09, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava [Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:14:15 -0500]:
>>         So, could you explain  your view of the issue here, without
>>  bringing in feeling of betrayal, which I do not comprehend?
> I agreed to abide by the social contract, but I happen to think that
> these lenny-ignore tags at hand are acceptable in order to get a release
> out, /and/ I also believe that a majority of the developers happens to
> think the same (otherwise I wouldn't condone their use; I repeat: if I
> thought most DDs would think they are not reasonable, I would not
> approve of them even if they'd be reasonable to me).
> I may as well be mistaken in this belief, so I'm open to being proved
> wrong. To be proven, specifically, that the developers at large don't
> want these lenny-ignore tags applied. (That should answer your question
> above.)

	This sounds like "appeal to popularity", just because
a supposed majority do not care about something being applied
that doesn't instantly make it reasonable.

	I do accept that lenny-ignore tags are an important
tool for the Release Team to make another successful release,
but I also think we will need to handle the non-free linux
blobs in some way.

	People may had been harsh in expressing their feelings
about the situation, now that the problem got a lot more
attention, my honest question is: what are the alternatives we
have from the Kernel and Release Team point of views? I mean,
do we have other alternatives besides doing something similar
we did for etch?

Kind regards,
- --
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: