Re: First draft of review of policy must usage
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:10:44PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:18:00AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> Really? Have you read the message where Luk said that #!/bin/sh bugs
> >> using no POSIX features isn't RC? That just make me think one thing:
> >> "Let's release fast, whatever this means!"
> > No, it means "Let's release at _some_ point, rather than waiting for
> > five years". It's not as if we haven't been taking this type of
> > shortcuts for woody and sarge either.
> I disagree with you.
Well, that makes you wrong then. The etch RC policy is directly derived
from the sarge RC policy, *with new requirements added*.
> > Look, I can understand you're not happy about dunc-tank, but let's not
> > start bringing in ridiculous arguments relating to it in every random
> > discussion, shall we?
> I'm not bringing a ridiculous argument as you can state above. That's
> what we accepted when we weren't targeting a deadline
No, you are very much mistaken.
> I fail to see where in the Constituition say's that RM team can ignore
> a Debian Policy rule.
There's nothing in the constitution that says RMs are *bound* by policy's
definition of what is or isn't a release-critical bug, either.
Anyway, it doesn't make sense to make POSIX sh an RC requirement for etch at
this stage of the release cycle, but I would be in favor of the release team
endorsing 0-day NMUs for any such bugs. I'll discuss this with Andi.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: