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

Re: Proposal: Apologize for releasing etch with sourceless/non-free firmware

On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 04:34:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:16:28 -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> said: 
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 07:54:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >> I'd add something to say that this is *really* the last time we
> >> postpone the fixing of the issue and that no further GR should
> >> change that.
> > Why?  That can't possibly be binding?
>         What makes you think that? The developers, by a GR, can
>  preemptively take the release decision that etch + 1 would not be
>  released with non-free software in the kernel, and that non-dfsg bits
>  in main, which violate the SC, would, for once, actually be really
>  considered RC.
>         Why does this not fall under takeing decisions that the
>  delegates are empowered to take bit?

Because we could just as well hold a vote some time in the future, to say that
finally, we are not going to make it for etch+1 and revert that decision.


Sven Luther

Reply to: