On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 07:27:16PM -0500, Michael Urman wrote:
> Can the severity descriptions or policy be updated to reflect this
> then? Serious is currently listed as
> "a severe violation of Debian policy" or "in the package maintainer's
> opinion...unsuitable for release." on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess you can take Andreas Barth's statement as having his release
manager hat on. The whole situation itself is really like feeling in
kindergarden...
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 01:06:39PM +0200, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
> * Sebastian Dröge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-25 23:28:18 +0200]:
> > Well, the upstream code is just a bit nicer now:
> > http://www.sacredchao.net/quodlibet/changeset/4267
>
> Okay, I don't see much point in arguing over this further; is the
> upstream change enough to make you (Sebastian) and the release team
> happy? If so, I'll roll a new tarball with that change, and upload that
> (I'll need someone to sponsor the upload, though.)
If you are having problems to find a sponsor for the upload, give me a
shot. I "depend" on quodlibet quite intensively for my daily sanity and
motivation that I'd jump through several hoops these days to get it into
a proper state for the release.
> > It's not like repacking a tarball is that much of work ;)
>
> No, but there are other reasons not to do it, all of which have been
> discussed to death elsewhere :P
Even though DFSG#5 speaks about the licence one could argue that it
shouldn't only cover that and that it could apply here.
So long,
Rhonda
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
