On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:10:44PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > 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. Well, that makes you wrong then. The etch RC policy is directly derived from the sarge RC policy, *with new requirements added*. > > 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 No, you are very much mistaken. > I fail to see where in the Constituition say's that RM team can ignore > a Debian Policy rule. There's nothing in the constitution that says RMs are *bound* by policy's definition of what is or isn't a release-critical bug, either. Anyway, it doesn't make sense to make POSIX sh an RC requirement for etch at this stage of the release cycle, but I would be in favor of the release team endorsing 0-day NMUs for any such bugs. I'll discuss this with Andi. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
