[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, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> When I do my release work, I have certain tools, and decisions about how
>> to use them. One of these tools is britney, and another is the possibility
>> of saying that certain bugs will not stop the release from happening.
> <snip>
>> Unstable is also "Debian", you know.)
> I found these arguments actually really convincing. So, to the GR
> proposers, beware of how do you propose it, because I would have
> really hard time understanding a GR that simply asks for not
> *releasing* stuff which we continue *distributing* in some of our
> suites (i.e., unstable).  Why should the treatment be different?

        It should not. Which is why the patches proposed on -kernel
 should be applied (NMU's are certainly feasible)

> ... and if it is *not* different, why should be the release managers
> be considered responsible for it? They "just" decide (and kudos for
> all their hard work, BTW) if something which is already in Debian gets
> released or not.

        I am not sure that violating a foundation document falls under
 the powers of a delegate. I wish it did, being a delegate, but it does
 not. I looked.

Amnesia used to be my favorite word, but then I forgot it.
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: