On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 10:36:41PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > I can see arguments against it, but none that make > > it an RC bug.
> Policy violations are RC by definition. Actually, no; policy violations are RC by *default*, but the definition of what's release-critical for a release is set by the release team with input from the developer community. I'm fairly certain that we're shipping packages in sarge that have maintainer fields pointing at people who have orphaned the packages in question; if it wasn't true at the time of the sarge release, it will certainly be true of sarge by the time etch releases. If we can survive this, I don't think that putting a mailing list address in a changelog (wrong though I think it is) would be grounds for delaying the release or removing the package from the release (the definition of 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/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
