Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > > > > I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will > > > > wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the > > > > manuals out now. > > > > > > I don't mean to pick on you, I've just seen a number of similar > > > statements. > > > > > > I hope people realize that the release team is saying "This is not > > > release critical", and not "This is not a bug". I had a terrible > > > time trying to get people to understand the difference, when I > > > was release manager :) > > > > I didn't realize that the release manager could decide to ignore the > > Social Contract if it is inconvenient. A more appropriate way to fix > > it would be to simply eliminate the documentation. People could then > > file bugs complaining about the lack of documentation even in > > non-free, and these bugs may or may not hold up the release. > > Weirdness. The appropriate reply to what you said is exactly the > paragraph that you quoted from me. What am I supposed to say now?
Well, you could clarify whether it is ok to ignore the Social Contract. > You do realize that we are distributing GFDL manuals as part of Debian > right now? The release manager isn't "deciding" that any more than > anyone else is. If you must point a finger at someone, point it at > the package maintainers. The consensus on GFDL'd manuals emerged long after those manuals were put in. The appropriate bugs have been filed, and I would point my finger at the Release Manager for allowing documented release-critical bugs to get into the released version. > What the release manager has decided is that the release must not be > delayed for this issue. I think that's a prudent decision, considering > that it's already taken two years and there's no guarantee of a quick > resolution. If sarge was releasing a year ago, I would agree with you. There was not the same kind of consensus, and we still had hope that the FSF would see the light. Now there is a strong consensus, and the chance of the FSF seeing the light has been reduced to zero. Moreover, there is still plenty of time to rip out documentation. > It may or may not be relevant that woody already has some GFDL manuals > in it. I can't decide, myself. It does seem silly to consider a bug > "release-critical" if the current stable version of the package has > the exact same problem. Old versions of ssh in woody had RC bugs, we just didn't know about them. That doesn't make a newer version with the same bugs any less buggy. Similarly, the consensus that these bugs are really bugs didn't form until after woody released. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]