On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 02:02:42AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:58:33AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > 4) pass a GR explaining the issue as is, and admitting our > >> > incapacity to fix it with 2 or 3 due to lack of ressources. > >> > >> We do not need a GR to simply follow our existing procedures. > > > > Sure, we do, because wehad a pre-sarge GR, which allowed to ignore the > > firmware (and other issues), but only for the sarge release, remember ? > > We can simply take our time to do (2). It is the job of a package > maintainer to check the licenses of their software; if the kernel team > cannot do so by December, even with help, I don't mind waiting.
Well, the question is if we can release etch in this state or not. Given the previous GR wording, this is not the case, and we either delay etch for a long time, or provide an override. > However, what started this thread IIRC was a complaint that the kernel > team was *closing* the relevant bugs. Well, i may not have followed the start of it, but it is something that both the RM team as the kernel team are aware of, even if some individual members may prefer to keep the status quo or ignore the issue. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
