On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 12:41:24PM -0400, Joe Nahmias wrote: > Colin Watson wrote: > > On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 01:31:44PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > > On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 02:13:04PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > Is there any reason that install-doc shouldn't be removed from > > > > unstable and/or testing, if it's not going to be used for > > > > debian-installer? > > > > > > The package is useless as it is so nobody would shed a tear for it, > > > but I don't know if there are any repercussions (or if it's against > > > the etiquette) if you ditch a binary package but don't adjust the > > > source package it originates from... > > > > The same reasons to remove install-doc would apply to the whole > > boot-floppies source package, wouldn't they? > PMJI, but what if the SRM does another point release of woody? Wouldn't > install-doc and boot-floppies be kinda necessary? They would presumably be using a version of the package from woody or w-p-u, as is customary, rather than the version from testing or unstable. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp16PhXacmDi.pgp
Description: PGP signature