On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 11:24:00AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 10:57:54AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070120 18:41]: > > > There are many ways to fix this bug.
> > This is true for many bugs. But when I ask myself "Is this bug bad > > enough that I will hold up the release for it", my honest answer is "I > > don't think I would". This isn't the same as "nobody is allowed to fix > > this bug" - it is just "we're not going to wait on fixing this bug". > > (And I know a couple of more possible breakages in packages which are > > not-yet-RC, a few kinds are on my personal work list for the Lenny > > cycle.) > Considering that there's an obvious one liner as workaround for this > bug, I'm surprised how much time you are spending stating that this bug > doesn't have to be fixed for etch instead of spending less time on > uploading an NMU... This is not the only bug of this class in Debian. Despite your perversity in disputing the RM's authority to use the etch-ignore tag, it still takes less time to have this argument out than to try to fix all bugs of this nature, which in fact don't warrant being RC. -- 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]
