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

Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:48:26AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> There is at least one more, and it seems to me this is what many people
> have expressed:
>         * All data (everything) in main should be DFSG-free, and must be
>           post-sarge. But we want an exception for sarge.
>           The exception should be that stuff that can be distributed,
>           but is non-free, and has been in sarge before the SC change,
>           and would have been allowed to stay according to the old
>           release policy, can stay in for sarge and point releases.
> The question is not only how long you estimate that the changes that
> still need to be made will take (e.g. for non-distributable things). The
> main question, for me, is whether any of the so-far proposed resolutions[1]
> achieves the goal of establishing an exception for sarge.

Have you read http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004?

If it's too much to absorb all at once, as a first step you might want to
go through it and read the paragraphs (and associated labels) that contain
the word "Sarge".  [Then go back and read the rest with that mind.]

> It also tells me that I should keep on with my doubts whether the
> desired effect, an exception for sarge, can be achieved with one of the
> current proposals. Maybe Raul's can do that better.

I've decided I do not need to make a proposal.  There is already a
proposal which specifically talks about an exemption for Sarge.

I had forgotten about the part of the proposal which specifically provides
for Sarge's release when I suggested that language.

I won't object if someone else wants to make a similar proposal (but
I won't second it unless I see the need, and I'll be ranking it on its
merits.)  Also, it's probably useful to talk about the proposal which
provides an explicit exemption for sarge -- if it doesn't achieve what you
want, maybe it would be worth spending some time discussing that issue.


Reply to: