* Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040603 16:25]: > On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 02:02:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040603 13:55]: > > > On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 07:11:01PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > > I thought that the upcoming GR vote would have an effect on their RC > > > > status. That is the reason why I did not act on them while I was still > > > > maintaining these packages.
> > > However, the situation is that the bugs are currently on RC status. We fix > > > DFSG-compliance bugs basing on the current SC, and regardless of what > > > future versions of the SC might or might not require. > > You mean as in: We break release of sarge, whether or not the > > developers want to release now? Please wait for the decision of the > > developers in the GR. There is no need to rush now. > IMHO experimental packages with needed changes should be prepaired > regardless the outcome of the new GR, and kept somewhere ready, > if the resulting vote was different from expectations, i.e. sarge > will be clean on the basis of the current SC. That's the only > way to avoid unacceptable long delays. If you want the peace, prepair > the war :) Well, it think it's consensus to do the move to non-free sooner or later, so it's always good to put work into that move. If somebody volunteers, that's fine. But, I don't think it's appropriate to put that much emphasise on doing that _now_, where we have other problems (like reducing the number of kernel sources enough that we can have security support for sarge). Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
