On Thursday 02 November 2006 22:38, Otavio Salvador wrote: > There's no need to _ask_ you before to open a bug report. We're a > comunity and as one we all want the best for the project.
I did not say that _I_ needed to be asked, I said it needed to be discussed on the debian-boot list first, especially when they are general purpose architecture all/any udebs as in this case. Adding an architecture specific udeb is much less problematic. We now only found out by accident that a request was made at all and that is _not_ the way adding new udebs to the archive should happen. However, it is a fact that adding a udeb to the archive _always_ has consequences that the release manager will at some point have to deal with, even if it is only managing migrations to testing or excluding unneeded udebs from being included on CD images. Also, if udebs are uploaded with the wrong priority, they could affect default installations. If such things are not discussed on the list, we (_the team_) may not know anything about them until it is already in the archive. That is just not the way to do things when you (want to) work as part of a team. Also, if this had been discussed on the list first, we, as a team, could have decided that there were already other ways available to have gdb available within d-i and that there was no need for the udeb, which would have saved troubling the maintainer of gdb with the bug report. Cheers, FJP P.S. Please, next time do not change "without discussing it on the debian-boot list" to "without asking Frans Pop for permission" so easily. I'm getting rather tired of people attributing things to me that I've never said. I could understand if you had objections to the "who currently is not even a member of the Debian Installer team" phrase, but there was nothing wrong with the rest of the para you quoted.
pgp0gbEPGQGek.pgp
Description: PGP signature
