On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 02:43:12PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > I agree. However, I think the issue concerns the "requirement" that > someone's preferences be followed. For example, it is one thing to say, > "I can't sponsor your package because you use cdbs and I don't know > anything about it." It is completely different to say, "I won't sponsor > your package because I don't like the changelog format you used." That's not really it: it's obviously OK to not sponsor a package for completely random reasons since there's no obligation on people to sponsor things. What seems to be more of an issue here is differentiating between issues that need to be fixed for the package to be acceptable in general (for example, licensing issues) and issues that a given sponsor happens to feel strongly about. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature