On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:52:28PM +0000, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > > > Though, when this software is central to all Debian (as the kernel is, > > or the glibc for the sunrpc issue, or mesa for the GLX code, or ...), > > then as it's a long and slow work to either prune the firmware, or deal > > with the copyright holders to relicense (and mesa has made it, proof > > that it's possible, but it needed like 2 or 3 releases of Debian to do > > so !), the Release team acknowledge that progress has been made, and > > tags the bugs $suite-ignore. > > This is the part I am not comfortable with. I do not think the > delegates have the powers to decide when enough progress has been made > to violate a foundation document in our release. Just like an > individual developer does not have a right to decide to violate the > DFSG in their work, I think the release team, which prepares the > release, can do so unilaterally either (I did not vote for Bush). And you're comfortable with ftp-master ruling DFSG-iness through NEW then ? I don't really see the difference. FWIW you can query all the lenny-ignore bugs on the BTS, there arent a lot, and check if you agree. Unlike Bush (and the reference is quite offensive, really) we don't hide such matters, and we never said we're not open to discussion. BUt yeah, tagging bugs lenny-ignore is part of the RM tasks, and we're delegated for that (among other things). -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpPss0pVJHjG.pgp
Description: PGP signature