Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 02:02:42AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:58:33AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <email@example.com> writes:
> >> > 4) pass a GR explaining the issue as is, and admitting our
> >> > incapacity to fix it with 2 or 3 due to lack of ressources.
> >> We do not need a GR to simply follow our existing procedures.
> > Sure, we do, because wehad a pre-sarge GR, which allowed to ignore the
> > firmware (and other issues), but only for the sarge release, remember ?
> We can simply take our time to do (2). It is the job of a package
> maintainer to check the licenses of their software; if the kernel team
> cannot do so by December, even with help, I don't mind waiting.
Well, the question is if we can release etch in this state or not. Given the
previous GR wording, this is not the case, and we either delay etch for a long
time, or provide an override.
> However, what started this thread IIRC was a complaint that the kernel
> team was *closing* the relevant bugs.
Well, i may not have followed the start of it, but it is something that both
the RM team as the kernel team are aware of, even if some individual members
may prefer to keep the status quo or ignore the issue.