-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:18:00AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Really? Have you read the message where Luk said that #!/bin/sh bugs
>> using no POSIX features isn't RC? That just make me think one thing:
>> "Let's release fast, whatever this means!"
>
> No, it means "Let's release at _some_ point, rather than waiting for
> five years". It's not as if we haven't been taking this type of
> shortcuts for woody and sarge either.
I disagree with you. See bellow:
,----[ Debian Developers' Corner ]
| Debian Policy Manual
|
| This manual describes the policy requirements for the Debian
| GNU/Linux distribution. This includes the structure and contents
| of the Debian archive, several design issues of the operating
| system, as well as technical requirements that each package must
| satisfy to be included in the distribution.
|
| In short, you need to read it.
`----
,----[ Debian Policy - Abstract ]
| This manual describes the policy requirements for the Debian GNU/Linux
| distribution. This includes the structure and contents of the Debian
| archive and several design issues of the operating system, as well as
| technical requirements that each package must satisfy to be included
| in the distribution.
`----
,----[ Debian Developer's Reference - Sections ]
| Every package in the main section must fully comply with the Debian
| Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) and with all other policy requirements
| as described in the Debian Policy Manual. The DFSG is our definition
| of "free software." Check out the Debian Policy Manual for details.
`----
Looks like I'm not wrong. We _NEED_ to respect policy. Otherwise, we
need to do a GR to be able to don't follow a criteria.
> Look, I can understand you're not happy about dunc-tank, but let's not
> start bringing in ridiculous arguments relating to it in every random
> discussion, shall we?
I'm not bringing a ridiculous argument as you can state above. That's
what we accepted when we weren't targeting a deadline and it cannot
change just because RM team want to.
I fail to see where in the Constituition say's that RM team can ignore
a Debian Policy rule.
- --
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
- ---------------------------------------------
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
- ---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFFQM/zLqiZQEml+FURAn2yAJ0Xg4g5QsX6tgOMKtZ7G6pGlGjhlwCgnUmW
1s/vtiiL6OMPqTSsE9B3O3E=
=Eo35
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
