Re: Decision GFDL
Richard Braakman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:22:10PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > 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.
> These bugs are *already* in the released version. The Release Manager
> would simply be permitting another release which still has them. The
> alternative would be to delay the release. Delaying a release because
> of bugs which are already present in the previous version is silly.
RC bugs are still release critical, even if they were in older
versions. Are you saying that breaking the Social Contract isn't
> Users would still be using the previous version during the delay, so
> they won't be any better off.
And after any delay, they will be better off. Much sooner than if
they had to wait a complete release cycle. In any case, I don't think
that there will be a significant delay. It is rather unlikely that
fixing these bugs will create any new RC bugs.
> The package maintainers have a different alternative, namely fixing
> the bugs.
Based on faulty information, the Release Manager told them not to
bother. Now they should bother.
> > 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.
> So, do it. If I understand the schedule right, the deadline is
> September 15th for gcc (minus testing delay) and October 1st for
> most of the others (again, minus testing delay).
Most of the work for gcc seems to have already been done. See bug
#193787. The maintainer is just waiting for a GFDL FAQ before
enabling them. That FAQ has existed for a while.