Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Every kernel upload changing the ABI goes through NEW.
The typical situation here is that code that has the same set of DFSG bugs is already in place and so it is questionable of what a reject really achieves (i.e. does the archive become more DFSG-compliant or not) and quite typically fixes some RC bugs (not always trashing people's hardware). Sure, the ftp team can make this into a stand-off, but the situation is much less clear than e.g. when the ftp team had openjdk-6 in NEW, which had its (known or discovered during the vetting) DFSG problems fixed rather fast and before it entered the archive in first place, thanks to the maintainer (Matthias) willing to get the bugs fixed and thanks to a cooperative upstream. So let's evaluate options other than rejecting: As for the suggestions to move linux-2.6 to non-free (which, again, would have required someone to upload that): The ftp team usually are pretty ruthless about pulling stuff from main with problems if it doesn't get fixed fast, but in the case of the kernel and glibc the Social Contract's We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component. puts a limit on what can be done: Aside from the additional work it would cause to everyone (installer, ...) and the undesirable effect of effectively forcing people to add non-free, moving stuff required for running Debian into non-free seems shady from a Social Contract point of view. Note how the situation would be vastly different if we had a known-good kernel package was somewhere in the archive (be it testing or unstable). And about the options of fixing it or just insulting other people to fix it I should note that the objection that finding a widely welcomed fix involves work (on blob loaders) that someone interested in a free kernel has no intrinsic motivation to do: A lot of tasks do that. I want a release and when I ask the release team, they tell me to fix RC bugs in stuff I personally don't care about one single bit. I don't get to yell at the release team for that (though I do at the maintainers of RC buggy packages possibly more than I should), but have the choice of working on stuff or not. Claiming that "I want a release now and we could just release, all the RC bugs are in packages I have no interest in" would be openly preposterous and in the case of "I would work on freeing the kernel of but finding something to make everyone happy involves making the firmware loadable in non-free" thinly disguises the same sentiment of "I'm not going to help unless it's 100% my way" in the disguise of a taking a higher moral stance than everyone else. "Moral, das ist, wenn man moralisch ist, versteht Er." Kind regards T. -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
