Hi, On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:06:12PM +0200, Philipp Schafft wrote: > > I have no preference either way, as long as the package complies with > > release > > policy, then it may be included in the release. > > > Your answer isn't very helpfull to me as it is. So I have some > questions:
I think that's because we don't have a strong opinion either way. > * If I want to go for keeping it in debian (what I of cause prefer > and will do my very best) will you 0) allow uploads while in > freeze for packages readding RoarAudio support, 1) will you > suggest to do this to people who removed it because of Ron? > (Statement on this ML will of cause do, just something I can > link). We will allow *unblocks* which comply with the wheezy freeze policy[0], on a case by case basis. I am NOT going to issue a statement other than that, and will NOT direct maintainers in this matter. Your argument with Ron is something that (as I indicated earlier) needs to be solved in unstable, or via the tech-ctte if you're not getting anywhere (I believe that there was a similar bug already open, but I could be wrong). For avoidence of doubt, the release team are not getting involved in your argument. Please take it elsewhere. > * If your answer to one of the above question is 'no' I don't feel > like spending time on this will help anybody. I suggested to > file RMs but you asked to keep them. Shell I just orphan them > instead? > > Please do not get me wrong: I'm very interested in maintainig the > packages and ensure they are in a good shape, but I'm not interested in > maintaining perfectly useless packages. > If the packages are actually useless, I would suggest RM bugs are the best way to go. [0] Note: this is in DRAFT form until we freeze... http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
