Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’? - Debian

This is a discussion on Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’? - Debian ; Howdy all, Have I missed some announcement that DFSG violations don't matter for the release of ‘lenny’? I ask because a whole lot of bug reports of DFSG violations have been tagged ‘lenny-ignore’ without explanation: and probably others I've missed. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 107

Thread: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

  1. Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    Howdy all,

    Have I missed some announcement that DFSG violations don't matter for
    the release of ‘lenny’?

    I ask because a whole lot of bug reports of DFSG violations have been
    tagged ‘lenny-ignore’ without explanation:








    and probably others I've missed.

    Should these tags be removed? I would think at least a meaningful
    justification in the bug report is required if DFSG violations are to
    be explicitly ignored, but perhaps I'm wrong.

    --
    \ “Oh, I realize it's a penny here and a penny there, but look at |
    `\ me: I've worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme |
    _o__) poverty.” —Groucho Marx |
    Ben Finney


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged lenny-ignore?

    Ben Finney writes:
    > Have I missed some announcement that DFSG violations don't matter for
    > the release of lenny?


    No, because they generally matter.

    > I ask because a whole lot of bug reports of DFSG violations have been
    > tagged lenny-ignore without explanation:

    [...]
    > and probably others I've missed.


    The full list of bugs tagged lenny-ignore is available here:
    http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgre...g=lenny-ignore

    > Should these tags be removed?


    No.

    > I would think at least a meaningful justification in the bug report is
    > required


    Well, apply common sense. In all of the bugs I recently tagged, the DFSG
    violation is usually a formal problem, something that other
    distributions and upstream don't consider a problem at all. While fixing
    these issues is and should be a goal of Debian, it's hardly something
    that can be done in the last few weeks before releasing. The drawbacks
    of delaying the release indefinitely for these bugs are much greater
    than releasing with these minor DFSG violations [1].

    FWIW, this has also been done for past releases (see, for example,
    #211765).

    Marc

    Footnotes:
    [1] Yeah, I'm waiting to get toasted for daring to say "minor" here.
    --
    BOFH #290:
    The CPU has shifted, and become decentralized.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkj8KdIACgkQmO5zOp3h7rHZJwCdHrnxhVB3X8 eIfh7N/TSTYXqP
    o6YAnj3X/eL0FdkQ9qbP1dL3lH9IuO5W
    =SP8T
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  3. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:41:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
    >
    > Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
    > trying to follow the social contract?


    Yes, they have.

    Furthermore, the FTP team (which is supposed to be in charge of DFSG
    enforcement) has decided to look the other way:

    http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=497823

    Btw, I'm looking for supporters for a GR to stop this gross violation of the
    SC. Any DDs who read this, please let me know if you're interested.

    --
    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."


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  4. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    Le lundi 20 octobre 2008 * 16:08 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
    > > Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
    > > trying to follow the social contract?

    >
    > Yes, they have.


    What if, instead of ranting everywhere, you actually contributed code to
    fix these bugs?

    I don’t recall the release team being reluctant to letting bug fixes
    (especially serious ones) migrate to lenny.

    --
    .''`.
    : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
    `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
    `- our own. Resistance is futile.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBI/JPjrSla4ddfhTMRAptzAJ48F6mYtl2oHX978njWzWoDr7HqnAC gqMH5
    W/29UgjbUlax58LtiE//RMc=
    =yWsR
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  5. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:48:50AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
    > While fixing
    > these issues is and should be a goal of Debian, it's hardly something
    > that can be done in the last few weeks before releasing.


    If I may make a suggestion, instead of trying to justify that Debian should
    change its goals against the will of the majority of the developers, the
    release team could just keep ignoring them all the same, and instead of
    referring to the result as "Debian", just find another name to make SC #1
    happy.

    And if you find yourself in difficulty finding a name, I think "Blobbie" is
    a pretty one.

    --
    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."


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  6. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
    > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:41:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
    > >
    > > Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
    > > trying to follow the social contract?

    >
    > Yes, they have.
    >
    > Furthermore, the FTP team (which is supposed to be in charge of DFSG
    > enforcement) has decided to look the other way:
    >
    > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=497823


    I'm not sure that an unanswered email means they are condoning it. It
    just means they're not talking to you.
    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    | ,''`. Stephen Gran |
    | : :' : sgran@debian.org |
    | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer |
    | `- http://www.debian.org |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFI/Jh5SYIMHOpZA44RAuENAKCNTzZHt8L8oY2q2s5K1Lk9nIxfDgC gmqqQ
    uInsGXey19WdlXNk5h++i3A=
    =H2FN
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  7. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:21:24PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
    > Le lundi 20 octobre 2008 * 16:08 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
    > > > Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
    > > > trying to follow the social contract?

    > >
    > > Yes, they have.

    >
    > What if, instead of ranting everywhere, you actually contributed code to
    > fix these bugs?


    I did...

    > I don’t recall the release team being reluctant to letting bug fixes
    > (especially serious ones) migrate to lenny.


    ....but you missed the point. They're not wishlist bugs. If they were, I
    wouldn't care much about them.

    --
    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."


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  8. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    Hi everyone, <--- will be referred to as "you"

    Stephen Gran said:
    > This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
    > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:41:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
    > > > trying to follow the social contract?

    > >
    > > Yes, they have.
    > >
    > > Furthermore, the FTP team (which is supposed to be in charge of DFSG
    > > enforcement) has decided to look the other way:
    > >
    > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=497823

    >
    > I'm not sure that an unanswered email means they are condoning it. It
    > just means they're not talking to you.

    .... with a CC to that bug report.

    I queried Robert on IRC and told him that he does not have a realistic
    scenario of fixing the bug and that he would need to come up with a
    working NMUable patch to in order to even have a viable proposition to
    move things forward.[1]

    What are the release and ftp team supposed to do here? Sure, I can
    type in "dak rm linux-2.6" and see what happens except the www.d.o
    pseudopackage receiving a bug about removing me from the
    FTP-Assistants list. Disposing of the luggage that is each
    supplementaryGid line in LDAP would enable me to move on to happier
    projects more easily.[2]

    As Robert himself says, these bugs have been known for four years.
    They are RC, if you did not prepare an NMU should ask yourself why you
    did not and stop pretending that it is the release or ftp team's
    responsibility to fix the RC bugs that you are not fixing.
    The options from a FTP or release point of view are exactly keep
    stuff, drop stuff, replace stuff by better stuff. That better stuff
    needs to be available, though, and you are as much to blame for that
    as everyone else.

    Kind regards

    T.

    1. And yes, the bug about e100 (#494308) contains an unanswered
    question by Robert. But to me it reads as "Do you want a patch that
    does not work or a longer one that actually works?" which without
    doubt has not been answered because it is a deep philosophical
    question and puzzling everyone who ever looked at that bug to the
    point where they have to cease all activity on RC bugs and relax by
    enjoying a decent flamewar on debian-devel.

    2. Every single time I look at the RC bug list, my first thought is
    about my exit strategy before I am even able to start considering
    the bug at hand.
    My pet flamewar would be about quality in Debian and whether the
    DAM needs to designate some people as Developers who do not
    maintain packages, but I can restrain myself enough to wait until
    after the release.
    --
    Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  9. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    Le lundi 20 octobre 2008 * 16:34 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
    > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:21:24PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
    > > What if, instead of ranting everywhere, you actually contributed code to
    > > fix these bugs?

    >
    > I did...


    And you deserve kudos for that. But that doesn’t make this current
    thread less of a troll. You cannot ask, so late in the release process,
    to introduce several thousand-lines patches in the kernel, even if they
    finally exist. And you can’t say you were ignoring the situation until
    now. It should have been obvious that, given how they evolved, these
    bugs would be ignored for lenny.

    > > I don’t recall the release team being reluctant to letting bug fixes
    > > (especially serious ones) migrate to lenny.

    >
    > ...but you missed the point. They're not wishlist bugs. If they were, I
    > wouldn't care much about them.


    They are serious bugs. And if we waited to have zero serious bugs before
    releasing, we’d never release. That’s why lenny-ignore tagsare here.

    Cheers,
    --
    .''`.
    : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
    `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
    `- our own. Resistance is futile.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBI/LzarSla4ddfhTMRAgT1AKDB2n/6KSh7hPCVQD9FFoPI+OpuBwCg69xF
    zttp/RtNFG4r8ZDgxXbzcps=
    =EVO6
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  10. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 06:15:57PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
    >
    > What are the release and ftp team supposed to do here? Sure, I can
    > type in "dak rm linux-2.6" and see what happens


    Move it to non-free. Then have it go to NEW the next time it's uploaded,
    and go through the usual DFSG-ness check (but this time with aid, since
    you can check the BTS for known issues).

    > They are RC, if you did not prepare an NMU should ask yourself why you
    > did not and stop pretending that it is the release or ftp team's
    > responsibility to fix the RC bugs that you are not fixing.


    The maintainers pretend that the only acceptable fix is one that:

    - Implements userland load (with the firmware blob added to non-free).
    - Has been tested on the affected hardware.

    Since I have interest in the Social Contract but not in supporting non-free
    stuff, I've only been working on #494010 [1] and packaged the necessary
    utility [2] that would assemble the (now free) firmware.

    For the rest, if I get a *firm* [3] assertion that I may NMU to fix it, you
    can count on it that I would NMU by removing all the blobs and replace the
    functions that process them with stubs. Then again, the maintainers don't
    want that. Not my fault.

    So, everyone stop complaining that I don't do the work. I already do much
    more than I am morally obligued to.

    [1] with much appreciated help/advice from Ben Hutchings
    [2] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/a56_1.3-1.html btw, would be really nice
    if it can be fast-tracked.
    [3] that means either sanctioned by the maintainers or by the DPL

    --
    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."


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  11. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 07:16:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
    >
    > You cannot ask, so late in the release process,


    Some of these bugs have been known for *years*. In one of them, I even got
    a reply saying something along the lines of "I was expecting this one".

    --
    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."


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  12. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    Le lundi 20 octobre 2008 * 16:34 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
    > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:21:24PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
    > > What if, instead of ranting everywhere, you actually contributed code to
    > > fix these bugs?

    >
    > I did...


    And you deserve kudos for that.

    But still, it is unrealistic to ask, so late in the release process,
    to introduce several thousand-lines patches in the kernel, even if they
    finally exist (and AFAIK there are not patches for all these bugs).

    You cannot say either that you were ignoring the situation until now. It
    should have been obvious that, given how they evolved, these bugs would
    be ignored for lenny. It is unfortunate, but people have focused on
    fixing other kinds of bugs.

    > > I don’t recall the release team being reluctant to letting bug fixes
    > > (especially serious ones) migrate to lenny.

    >
    > ...but you missed the point. They're not wishlist bugs. If they were, I
    > wouldn't care much about them.


    They are serious bugs. And if we waited to have zero serious bugs before
    releasing, we’d never release. That’s why lenny-ignore tagsare here.

    The release team is not trying to lower standards, but simply to
    mitigate between the issues and obtain the best compromise.

    Cheers,
    --
    .''`.
    : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
    `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
    `- our own. Resistance is futile.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBI/L5BrSla4ddfhTMRAoGQAJsHtfKar3uXti20AVp+xpaZmVTohAC ggrW6
    rRQz+BguvnVfXq9N/FiQB/Y=
    =K3Js
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  13. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    Le lundi 20 octobre 2008 19:30 +0200, Robert Millan a crit :
    > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 07:16:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
    > >
    > > You cannot ask, so late in the release process,

    >
    > Some of these bugs have been known for *years*. In one of them, I even got
    > a reply saying something along the lines of "I was expecting this one".


    Still, the release team depends on the good will of developers who spend
    time fixing RC bugs. And they are not the only ones that have been
    sitting for way too long.

    --
    .''`.
    : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
    `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
    `- our own. Resistance is futile.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBI/MMyrSla4ddfhTMRAs/fAKDVL+zWr9KFas3QdBkTsc5Pr0WhWACgoSAc
    iZ8ZciSQr+VpRjy+enIcIKg=
    =Kl5K
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  14. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    Damnit, sent mail instead of moving to drafts. Sorry for the double
    sending.
    --
    .''`.
    : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
    `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
    `- our own. Resistance is futile.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBI/L6nrSla4ddfhTMRAtCbAJ469TIzeRFKd4JoDhrFWqTzeI3AVAC eMb/A
    l+Py4zWvlwAmeuAQe3+MIXw=
    =W3EG
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  15. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

    > I object to a second round of this. I was ok with it once, as a
    > compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time
    > thing, to give time to actually *fix* the problem.


    Note that there is currently active upstream work to allow us to address
    these issues - some of the patches are present in 2.6.27, others are
    still in flight. This is a vast step forward on where we were with etch
    if we do decide to go down the route of releasing with exceptions again.

    > We need the relevant maintainers to be told "your unwillingness to fix
    > this means we will not be able to release".


    I don't think that's a particularly constructive approach to take,
    especially not in a volunteer project.

    --
    "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  16. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged lenny-ignore?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkj80foACgkQmO5zOp3h7rF3EQCeNUDDXcYNak tRspYorEFuqnOq
    YVMAn3/B77GVjI+sHS/lzI+xyf6rE0tx
    =65cI
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  17. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 20-10-2008 16:32, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
    > On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
    >> I queried Robert on IRC and told him that he does not have a realistic
    >> scenario of fixing the bug and that he would need to come up with a
    >> working NMUable patch to in order to even have a viable proposition to
    >> move things forward.[1]
    >>
    >> What are the release and ftp team supposed to do here? Sure, I can
    >> type in "dak rm linux-2.6" and see what happens except the www.d.o
    >> pseudopackage receiving a bug about removing me from the
    >> FTP-Assistants list. Disposing of the luggage that is each
    >> supplementaryGid line in LDAP would enable me to move on to happier
    >> projects more easily.[2]

    >
    > Seems like there are patches stripping the kernel of these
    > non-free blobs. So, how much would out hardware support be degraded?
    > How many people are affected by these non-free drivers?


    Just as a reference, #484365 talks about linux-libre which
    seems to be an effort from FSFLA to remove non-free blobs from
    Linux kernel.

    http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=484365


    Kind regards,
    - --
    Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
    "Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iEYEARECAAYFAkj8268ACgkQCjAO0JDlykaAlwCfZwpQ+Rx5Pe 4/rloACozBvPnw
    iIoAn22gly6EjMsx97BzRWOH0ZIjQwua
    =zH0D
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  18. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    * Manoj Srivastava [Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:41:16 -0500]:

    > Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
    > trying to follow the social contract? Is releasing on schedule more
    > important than the SC?


    When I do my release work, I have certain tools, and decisions about how
    to use them. One of these tools is britney, and another is the possibility
    of saying that certain bugs will not stop the release from happening.

    Every developer has tools, and decisions as well. For example, every
    developer can make uploads, and they have the power to decide to upload
    a VCS snapshot of a package to unstable.

    For me, believe it or not, it's very important not to betray the rest of
    developers with the actions I take in my role as a release person. Which
    is *not* to say I won't take any actions that makes feel one particular
    developer betrayed. But I do try to listen to what people have to say
    about how we release, I really do.

    In the case at hand, I can clearly see some people feel betrayed, and
    they're in the right to be so (though IMHO they're not in their right to
    speak for the developers at larege). However, and until proven wrong,
    I'm convinced the majority of developers don't feel betrayed by these
    "lenny-ignore" tags. I'm open to being proven wrong, though.

    (If you must know, I also /personally/ believe that it's the task of
    those who feel betrayed to prove the release team wrong, and not the
    opposite. In my view, the release takes what is in unstable and tries to
    make something coherent of it. If you are outraged with what's in
    unstable, take it up with the people responsible for it. We just stamp a
    number in certain versions of packages, nothing more. Unstable is also
    "Debian", you know.)

    --
    Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
    Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

    Listening to: Dar Williams - February


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  19. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    * Adeodato Simó [Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:38:00 +0200]:

    > (If you must know, I also /personally/ believe that it's the task of
    > those who feel betrayed to prove the release team wrong, and not the
    > opposite.


    (If the release team fail to realize by themselves, I mean, should that
    happen.)

    --
    Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
    Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

    Listening to: Dar Williams - This Was Pompeii


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  20. Re: Bug reports of DFSG violatio ns are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

    On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:46:18PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
    > Robert Millan writes:
    > > It seems we relied primarily on the release team, which has betrayed
    > > the goals of the project,

    >
    > I do not accept to be called names because I firmly believe that
    > Debian's goal is to distribute the best possible free software to our
    > users. All of our work has no value unless people are able to use the
    > software we integrate, test and improve.
    >
    > I believe what you want to say is "I'm willing to pick up all the work
    > of the release team" before you start insulting the people who invest a
    > lot more time into this project than you do.


    Sorry for my blunt description of the situation. Sometimes it has to come
    this way, but I don't think it's insulting.

    If that makes you feel better, I dearly appreciate most of your work (that is,
    the part that doesn't involve dismissing DFSG violations as non-RC issues).

    --
    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."


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast