Re: Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Re: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware
- From: "BALLABIO GERARDO" <GERARDO.BALLABIO@mpsgr.it>
- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:00:27 +0200
- Message-id: <53F5051F689FD84AB8A2A5A27BE251950E5E17@se000010010046.servinternet.local>
> No, what allowed sarge to go out the door with DFSG violations was an
unambigous GR by a majority of the debian developers who decided to
those non-free firmware (and GFDL docs, and some random fonts, and ...),
sarge even though they didn't quite meet the DFSG.
> That vote is not valid for etch though, as we decided to waive that
sarge, so only a new GR will allow debian to release the current kernel
non-free firmware as part of etch, independently of the migration
are so worried about above.
I disagree. If there's non-free material in main, that's a bug. Nothing
in the Constitution or policy says that this class of bugs should be
treated differently than all others, therefore the normal rule applies:
for each unresolved bug, the release managers are ultimately in power to
decide whether it's a release blocker or not. A General Resolution is
only needed to _overrule_ the release managers' decision.
The reason a GR was needed for Sarge was precisely that the then release
manager, Anthony Towns, had stated that the non-free material in Sarge
was a release blocker, so that had to be overruled. But if the current
release team decides that Etch can be released, then it can be released.
In fact, you'd need a GR to force them _not_ to release.