Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged 'lenny-ignore'?
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>
>>> ... 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.
>
> Stop this nonsense, it's not the release team that is violating a
> foundation document. It's Debian as a whole and it's happening now, not
> when we release or not. The only thing we did as a release team is to
> make clear that we don't want to delay the release if these bugs won't
> get fixed. As always we don't object that lenny-ignore bugs would get
> fixed before lenny.
Hmm. I am not so sire it is nonsense. Yes, the release team is
not alone in this, and, really, all of us are somewhat to blame for not
helping the kernel team fix the DFSG violations. But I don't think that
the release team is blameless, either, since they decided to release
with DFSG violating code.
Now, if we are all so very eager to have these bugs go away, we
have no objections to an NMU with the patches that have been posted on
-kernel mailing list, right? (Note: some of these patches have only
recently been posted, so NMU's based on these patches have only just
becme possible).
manoj
--
BE ALERT!!!! (The world needs more lerts...)
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: