Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 08:01:02PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote:
>> I have to admit that I'm a bit curious how you justify needing a 3:1
>> supermajority to update a Packages file, but not to have the software
>> in question served in the first place.
> The basic difference is that in one case it is the result of an unintended
> mistake , and in the other it is the result of known, willfull
> infringement of the Social Contract.
> It is in fact so clear, that we have a state in the BTS for bugs that are
> known to violate the DFSG and nevertheless intentionally ignored by the
> Release Team ("lenny-ignore" tag).
Please stop this fud. As everyone knows the 'lenny-ignore' tag is not
used to intentionally ignore bugs (and has nothing to do with DFSG
violations or not apart from bug severities), it's used to mark bugs as
not blocking the release. It's also perfectly clear that when such bugs
get fixed properly in time for the release the fixed package would be
accepted in the release.
>  e.g. FTP masters not finding a specific violation during routine
> inspection , or package maintainers uploading new upstream
> versions that introduce new violations.
How can you be so sure it's also not 'ignoring' on their side? It looks
very much that you just want to attack the release team and don't want
to be constructive?
>  or finding and ignoring them, in which case this *is* a serious problem,
> not an example that can be used to justify more of the same.
Or only searching for bugs when we are going to release.
Or finding and not fixing them as that may mean getting dirty hands
which in this case looks to be the real problem.
Sorry if this looks like a personal attack, but I'm sick of all these