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

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

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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.

We didn't decide to release yet...

>         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).

Not in principle, though I would object an NMU that is not tested properly.



Reply to: