On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 03:08:35PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > On Thursday 19 April 2007 03.15:21 David Nusinow wrote: > > We > > need to push XCB forward though, and how to deal with the java bug > > mentioned in that post isn't clear yet.
> What I don't quite understand is how a non-free package should block this > upgrade. > Yes, Java is used by a lot of people and I'd certainly not push this into > testing until the problem is solved, but we're talking about unstable here. > If Java is broken in unstable because of a Java bug (AFAIU this is really a > Java bug, not an X bug?) and is not so easy to fix, the by all means lets > break Java. Somebody apparently had pressure from somebody to push Java > into non-free, so reports that Java is broken in Debian unstable should get > the pressure up to get it fixed, no? "unstable" doesn't mean "it's ok to upload packages with known bugs that render the system unusable to many users and drives them away from using unstable because they're using non-free software and that shouldn't matter to us". The consequences of breaking Java for most users (whether they're using it in the form packaged in non-free or not) would be an increased volume of (duplicate) bug reports for the XSF and, if the problem remains unresolved, a decrease in the number of users testing the unstable packages for us in precisely the configurations that are relevant to the XCB switch. -- 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]
