Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Luk Claes wrote: > >> Manoj Srivastava wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: >>>> ... and if it is *not* different, why should be the release managers >>>> be considered responsible for it? They "just" decide (and kudos for >>>> all their hard work, BTW) if something which is already in Debian gets >>>> released or not. >>> I am not sure that violating a foundation document falls under >>> the powers of a delegate. I wish it did, being a delegate, but it does >>> not. I looked. >> Stop this nonsense, it's not the release team that is violating a >> foundation document. It's Debian as a whole and it's happening now, not >> when we release or not. The only thing we did as a release team is to >> make clear that we don't want to delay the release if these bugs won't >> get fixed. As always we don't object that lenny-ignore bugs would get >> fixed before lenny. > > Hmm. I am not so sire it is nonsense. Yes, the release team is > not alone in this, and, really, all of us are somewhat to blame for not > helping the kernel team fix the DFSG violations. But I don't think that > the release team is blameless, either, since they decided to release > with DFSG violating code.
We didn't decide to release yet... > Now, if we are all so very eager to have these bugs go away, we > have no objections to an NMU with the patches that have been posted on > -kernel mailing list, right? (Note: some of these patches have only > recently been posted, so NMU's based on these patches have only just > becme possible). Not in principle, though I would object an NMU that is not tested properly. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
