Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 05:57:04PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> To give an example,
> I can remember well that during release of Sarge, we noticed on Saturday
> (that was while already the cd images were partially done) that the
> upgrade of sendmail will stop delivering any mails in the queue, but due
> to the options we had (either skip the release for at least another
> week, or deliver this version of sendmail and document it in the release
> notes) we decided to not stop the release. Such things can happen with
> any part of the release policy, and I think that's the adequate
> behaviour.
You're mixing unrelated things. We don't promise to our users that Debian is
100% bug-free. We just try and do our best.
On the other hand, we _do_ promise to our users that Debian is 100% free.
If you're not comfortable with keeping this promise, the appropiate procedure
is seeking the approval of the project, like was done for etch.
But so far you haven't. And you stated your intent to release lenny with SC
violations that the project hasn't approved. That is the whole reason I care
about this. I don't really feel strongly about whether we should make an
exception or not, as long as it is the result of consensus and is endorsed
by the majority of the project, not by a few selected ones.
Yeah, I really mean what I said. If you don't believe me, check what I voted
last time:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007_tally.txt
You'll see that I'm not the "radical zealot" some try to present me as. Proof
is written.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
Reply to: