[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Futur status of RoarAudio packages


On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:06:12PM +0200, Philipp Schafft wrote:
> >   I have no preference either way, as long as the package complies with release
> >   policy, then it may be included in the release.
> > 
> Your answer isn't very helpfull to me as it is. So I have some
> questions:

I think that's because we don't have a strong opinion either way.

>       * If I want to go for keeping it in debian (what I of cause prefer
>         and will do my very best) will you 0) allow uploads while in
>         freeze for packages readding RoarAudio support, 1) will you
>         suggest to do this to people who removed it because of Ron?
>         (Statement on this ML will of cause do, just something I can
>         link).

We will allow *unblocks* which comply with the wheezy freeze policy[0],
on a case by case basis.  I am NOT going to issue a statement other than
that, and will NOT direct maintainers in this matter.

Your argument with Ron is something that (as I indicated earlier) needs
to be solved in unstable, or via the tech-ctte if you're not getting
anywhere (I believe that there was a similar bug already open, but I
could be wrong).

For avoidence of doubt, the release team are not getting involved in
your argument. Please take it elsewhere.

>       * If your answer to one of the above question is 'no' I don't feel
>         like spending time on this will help anybody. I suggested to
>         file RMs but you asked to keep them. Shell I just orphan them
>         instead?
> Please do not get me wrong: I'm very interested in maintainig the
> packages and ensure they are in a good shape, but I'm not interested in
> maintaining perfectly useless packages.

If the packages are actually useless, I would suggest RM bugs are the
best way to go.

[0] Note: this is in DRAFT form until we freeze...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: