Re: Decision GFDL
Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > > I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
> > > > wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the
> > > > manuals out now.
> > >
> > > I don't mean to pick on you, I've just seen a number of similar
> > > statements.
> > >
> > > I hope people realize that the release team is saying "This is not
> > > release critical", and not "This is not a bug". I had a terrible
> > > time trying to get people to understand the difference, when I
> > > was release manager :)
> >
> > I didn't realize that the release manager could decide to ignore the
> > Social Contract if it is inconvenient. A more appropriate way to fix
> > it would be to simply eliminate the documentation. People could then
> > file bugs complaining about the lack of documentation even in
> > non-free, and these bugs may or may not hold up the release.
>
> Weirdness. The appropriate reply to what you said is exactly the
> paragraph that you quoted from me. What am I supposed to say now?
Well, you could clarify whether it is ok to ignore the Social
Contract.
> You do realize that we are distributing GFDL manuals as part of Debian
> right now? The release manager isn't "deciding" that any more than
> anyone else is. If you must point a finger at someone, point it at
> the package maintainers.
The consensus on GFDL'd manuals emerged long after those manuals were
put in. The appropriate bugs have been filed, and I would point my
finger at the Release Manager for allowing documented release-critical
bugs to get into the released version.
> What the release manager has decided is that the release must not be
> delayed for this issue. I think that's a prudent decision, considering
> that it's already taken two years and there's no guarantee of a quick
> resolution.
If sarge was releasing a year ago, I would agree with you. There was
not the same kind of consensus, and we still had hope that the FSF
would see the light. Now there is a strong consensus, and the chance
of the FSF seeing the light has been reduced to zero. Moreover, there
is still plenty of time to rip out documentation.
> It may or may not be relevant that woody already has some GFDL manuals
> in it. I can't decide, myself. It does seem silly to consider a bug
> "release-critical" if the current stable version of the package has
> the exact same problem.
Old versions of ssh in woody had RC bugs, we just didn't know about
them. That doesn't make a newer version with the same bugs any less
buggy. Similarly, the consensus that these bugs are really bugs
didn't form until after woody released.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: