On 7/9/06, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also sprach Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.09.0257 +0200]:
> I can use my time to do both, and that's what i'm doing.
Of course I did not mean to tell you how to use your time! Sorry.
Ok, no problem.
> Sometimes it's hard to figure out because i don't like to
> participate on these Debian "mailing list parties " (aka:
> flamewars). I don't think there are too many RC bugs, and it seems
> that the release team schedule looks sane until now. I'm asking
> for some more work towards Etch not new gratuitous RC bugs.
Sure, but our release schedule is not sane, it needs *a lot* of
work. And there are too many RC bugs.
I disagree really, comparing with Woody and Sarge, i think we're going well.
> Anyway, i think you're suggesting to throw out SELinux support and LSB
> 3.1 compliance for Etch, right ?
No. But LSB compliance does not include init.d scripts, and SELinux
support is also only a goal, not a blocker.
I don't see LSB compliance nor SELinux support around the corner.
> Based on Carlos' progress (as i cited in my first message), we
> should put some effort to deliver a better Etch with the current
> schedule. I don't think it will be possible to SELinux and
> probably other pet release goals thought.
Well, then I suggest you start by doing the work and filing bugs
with patches. When you reach a point where you can say "if all these
bugs were merged, we would have LSB compliance", then I suppose we
can see what to do from there and proceed with the NMUs.
Does this sound fair?
Sure, it sounds. Have you noticed that somebody else already started
(if not finnished already) it ? Please read again my first message,
i'm sure you missed some important points.
regards,
-- stratus
_______________________________________________
initscripts-ng-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/initscripts-ng-devel
