Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I would think at least a meaningful justification in the bug > > report is required > > Well, apply common sense.
Common sense, i.e. the policy, social contract, and DFSG that are each agreed in common by all DDs, would have those bugs prevent packages violating the DFSG from being released in Debian. If you have some other justification that overrides this common sense, *please* make it explicit in the bug report when tagging bugs to be ignored despite the evident unsuitability of the package for release. > In all of the bugs I recently tagged, the DFSG violation is usually > a formal problem, something that other distributions and upstream > don't consider a problem at all. That appears to be a no-op: other distributions and upstream have not in general made an explicit social contract to follow the DFSG, while the Debian project has done so. > While fixing these issues is and should be a goal of Debian, it's > hardly something that can be done in the last few weeks before > releasing. Is that release deadline externally imposed, then? Are we bound to release on a specific date regardless of what bugs, ‘lenny-ignore’ tagged or otherwise, remain in the packages? Or is it the case, as I'd understood from the guiding documents of the Debian project, that it's more important to release Debian such that it meets the project's own promises? > The drawbacks of delaying the release indefinitely for these bugs > are much greater than releasing with these minor DFSG violations > [1]. This is a fallacy of the excluded middle. You omit the option to remove the parts of the work that violate the DFSG, which is a long-accepted solution to these types of bugs. -- \ “Dare to be naïve.” —Richard Buckminster Fuller, personal motto | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
