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

Re: LTS, no-dsa reasoning and sponsored packages


labeling it "minor issues" when the real reason is "sponsors needed"
sounds wrong to me.

I'd say "minor issues" is right for minor issues. And "sponsors needed"
is a legitimate, helpful additional information.

It seems to me, that it's not uncommon to Debian to search for a sponsor
of a package:


Am 08.04.19 um 21:51 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso:
> Hi LTS contributors,
> 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.
> 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.
> Thanks for reading,
> Regards,
> Salvatore

Linuxhotel GmbH, Geschäftsführer Dipl.-Ing. Ingo Wichmann
HRB 20463 Amtsgericht Essen, UStID DE 814 943 641
Antonienallee 1, 45279 Essen, Tel.: 0201 8536-600, http://www.linuxhotel.de

Reply to: