Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
Raul Miller <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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
>> achieves the goal of establishing an exception for sarge.
> Have you read http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004?
Yes, why do you ask?
> 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.]
What do you want to say with that? I think that Proposal B, C and E want
to establish an exception as I wrote above. The point is that I feel
that Anthony does not read the same from those paragraphs. I wonder
why. But it seems it is no longer important, since he has (somehow)
answered the question.
>> 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.
My sentence was rather a suggestive question to Anthony, or the
like. Personally, I have the opinion that the proposals are well
formulated to achieve what (I believe) they want.
> I had forgotten about the part of the proposal which specifically provides
> for Sarge's release when I suggested that language.
You mean E. Proposal C also mentiones sarge, and I don't see how this
would not also establish such an exception.
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie