Hi Bart, On Friday 02 November 2012, Bart Martens wrote: > > The only response that I got was one new issue report[4] my package. I > > have since fixed the issue in unstable, and contacted the reporter, who > > - in my reading - seemed to imply that he would be willing to update my > > upload permissions, once the bug was dealt with. This has not happened. > > [4]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=689982 > > I didn't mean to imply that. ok. That's important info for me (and I did ask you about that explicity, too, in previous PM). > > and my > > resulting conclusion that the issue need not, and in fact cannot[6] be > > addressed for wheezy, any more. > > [6]: http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html > > The bug can still be fixed in wheezy. On the premise that your assessment of severity is correct, I agree. > > Again, however, this is just a guess, as our > > communication has been rather more frugal than I would have hoped for. > > Haven't I answered all e-mails ? Erm - no. And you were primary recipient and / or on CC for *three* mails (two on public record, the last one in PM) expressing that I did not see this as severity serious (and why). I did not receive a reply for *any* of these. Well, so what. I'm glad I do know your point of view, now. Actually, I continue to doubt your reasoning, as policy talks about "*distribution* licence", which I read to mean those licence terms (out of the available alternative licencings) which allow the Debian project to distribute the files in question. This would apply to neither Qt commercial licence nor to the Qt LGPL exception, which is why I ommitted those, quite deliberately. Well, my interpretation may be wrong, and beyond increasing the signal-to- noise ratio, there's nothing wrong with including the whole sermon, technically. So I will do this, and I'll write back, when done. Regards Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.