Allthough the link in Frans Pop's post ( http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=229913&cid=18654143 ) helps to answer the question. The links referred to within the links still show release critical bugs, and, as Pankaj Jangid pointed out in his post I'm sure these bugs are critical for someone.
By definition I thought release-critical to mean that it was critical for these bugs to be fixed before the release can happen. If they are not release-critical why label them as such. I thought that it was part of debian's high standards (which make debian the distro of choice for many) to not release a stable distro if it had bugs that are considered as serious or grave. Or what is the REAL definition of release-critical? If the bugs are not critical for a stable distro to be released why label them as such (defeats the purpose). Also, as I mentioned before I have been running Etch while in testing for quite some time and, for the most part, it has been quite stable. So I'm not saying that etch contains bugs that make it unusable. Quite the contrary - etch is still running quite well in my box. I'm only pointing out that it doesn't help with user confidence when a distro releases under the name stable when it admits to still having several release-critical bugs at the time. If a distro by it's own standards says that there are bugs that are critical to be solved before the release can occur (hence the definition of release-critical), but then goes ahead and releases as stable while these bugs have not been resolved - it makes it seem as though it has lowered it's standards. If all the release-critical bugs were reclassified by the package maintainers as minor or at least less than serious then it would make more sense to go ahead and release. But as you can see from: http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities for a bug to be release critical means that the package is either critical, grave, or serious. Furthermore, the same document also states that a package maintainer can tag the package as etch-ignore meaning "This release-critical bug is to be ignored for the purposes of releasing etch" but even this has not been done which again could suggest that etch was release as stable in a hurry. I'm sure new bugs will always come up over time, but having no known release-critical bugs at the time of a stable release really shows that when Debian says stable it really means it. Why was Sarge able to release at 0 release-critical bugs and not Etch? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
