On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Luk Claes wrote: > > Here's what I would like to suggest as acceptable for lenny (and thus > > 1.14.19): > > Freeze guidelines are not really up to discussion and I don't like that > maintainers of key packages send the signal that they don't care about > them...
I'm sorry, I do care about the goal of the freeze: "release a top quality distribution in the planned timeframe". But I really dislike "dogmatic" answer like your "I want zero changes because that's the way it is". If you don't want to consider the proposition based on its merit concerning the risks for the release in terms of delay and quality, I'll seriously consider bringing this issue up to the tech-ctte (and no, it's not because I want to annoy anyone, it's just because decisions must be made on technical merits and nothing else, and because I really care about the few changes that I mentioned). You should also consider that while dpkg is a key piece of our infrastructure, it's also maintained by very active people in the project itself and that we know what we are doing. In some ways, it seems unfair to have similar freeze criteria for external software just packaged by Debian and software developed by Debian where we have absolute control over it (and where we know what we're doing with it). > You say that dpkg won't delay the release while questioning the freeze > guidelines in itself is probably enough for other package maintainers to > make sure the release will be delayed... As I said, there's grounds for treating "native" software differently from all other software that is just "packaged" within Debian... exactly like there's a reason why we don't freeze the installer or the kernel now. But they both play a significant role in the whole picture. Please think about it. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
