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

Re: LTS, no-dsa reasoning and sponsored packages

Hi Salvatore,

On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:51:19PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Recently I noticed that for a no-dsa (either for no-dsa or the
> stronger ignored) as explanation was started to be used e.g. "not used
> by any sponsor".
> If LTS is meant as Debian project, then I would suggest not to start
> to use those formulations, which I think are fine for ELTS, which is a
> dedicated project not on Debian directly. Saying something is not DSA
> worthy or is going to be ignored, because it's not used by a LTS
> sponsor will give a signal to others that indeed, Debian LTS is not a
> generic Debian project.

thanks for bringing this up. FWIW, I agree with you.

> Just stick to "Minor issue" in such cases if something is not DSA
> worthy because the issue is minor, but do not make it depdendent on if
> a paying LTS sponsor is using it or not.

(or dont mark it "Minor issue" if it's not minor. This should also
hopefully make it more likely someone picks it up as a volunteer efford,
eg when proofing one is captable of lts work...)


       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: