On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:07:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > reasonable suggestion in most cases, and fits my explanation of "course > > > > of > > > > action" exactly.
> > > Sure, but totally irrealistic. > > In this specific case, and only known because of your knowledge of > > upstream. > So, did anyone here care about my knowledge ? You didn't even bothered to > consult me, or others of the ocaml debian team, and engagedin a course of > action which may result in having ocaml removed from sarge without chance of > redemption, and i doubt that the RM will hold the release until this is > solved. And then you wonder why i feel a little upset ? As a fellow release assistant, I agree with Colin Watson's position that there is no pressing reason to remove packages from the archive while their license status is still being discussed, or while a clarification is being sought from upstream, if those packages are already in stable. Moreover, even after sarge is released, packages can still be removed from main in a point release. So please stop trying to use the upcoming sarge release as a shield against open and frank discussion about the problems with the QPL. If the ultimate conclusion is that the QPL is not free, any time you've spent trying to delay examination of this license can only hurt ocaml's chances of remaining in the archive. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
