On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 10:33:56AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > Given option B as the winner for the most > recent election, and given current release policy > (http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_release_policy.txt) I think we need > to issue a statement along the lines of > > We ratify the current release policy with the additional note that dfsg > issues which would have been ignored before GR 2004-003 shall be tagged > "sarge-ignore".
Uh, can we have something more descriptive than just "the current
release policy", and avoid dictating mechanism ("sarge-ignore") rather
than just policy? Also, some issues that would have been ignored before
GR 2004-003 might not have been related to these concerns, and may not
need to be ignored now.
Points to consider:
* what stuff must and needn't comply with the DFSG, according to
the reverted social contract ("Debian will be 100% free
software") -- docs, firmware, data files for games, rfcs, ...?
* what stuff must and needn't comply with the DFSG when the SC
is re-amended after sarge is release -- woody updates? sarge
updates? stuff in the new testing? new uploads?
Note that there isn't really a "current release policy" on this issue --
the policy before the original GR was clear, the policy since then has
been ambiguous at best, and more closely approximated non-existant.
Cheers,
_/\ <-- RM cap
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
