On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 07:23:13AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > > This particular kind of FHS violation (arch-indep code in arch-dep > > directory) is not generally RC, because there are no significant functional > > problems as a result of mis-identifying files as arch-dependent that aren't.
> Then please clarify this in the etch release policy. Of course I had > this thought myself and checked with the release policy text. It > explicitly states that any FHS violation is RC, and this one is clearly > a violation. It would be nice if the text could be rephrased so that > it's clear what actually is RC. Agreed, the release policy is clarified now. Thanks, -- 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]
