Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> writes: > Have I missed some announcement that DFSG violations don't matter for > the release of ‘lenny’? No, because they generally matter. > I ask because a whole lot of bug reports of DFSG violations have been > tagged ‘lenny-ignore’ without explanation: [...] > and probably others I've missed. The full list of bugs tagged lenny-ignore is available here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=lenny-ignore > Should these tags be removed? No. > I would think at least a meaningful justification in the bug report is > required Well, apply common sense. In all of the bugs I recently tagged, the DFSG violation is usually a formal problem, something that other distributions and upstream don't consider a problem at all. While fixing these issues is and should be a goal of Debian, it's hardly something that can be done in the last few weeks before releasing. The drawbacks of delaying the release indefinitely for these bugs are much greater than releasing with these minor DFSG violations [1]. FWIW, this has also been done for past releases (see, for example, #211765). Marc Footnotes: [1] Yeah, I'm waiting to get toasted for daring to say "minor" here. -- BOFH #290: The CPU has shifted, and become decentralized.
Attachment:
pgpIzS04xw68J.pgp
Description: PGP signature