On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:45:59PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > 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.
Ok, nice to hear that. > Moreover, even after sarge is released, packages can still be removed > from main in a point release. Makes sense. > 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 Well, it is the first time i heard about this, maybe Colin told me already but i missed it or somethign such though. I hope i have posed the basis for a better discusion of this with my sumary-recapitulation-whatver. > 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. Well, did i try to delay examination ? I posted with my doubts about the first summary conclusion, and was ignored. This hardly seams like a delaying tactic on my part. I also contacted upstream, let's see what he will say to it, i doubt it will be positive though. Friendly, Sven Luther
