On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 06:00:10AM -0500, BugScan reporter wrote: > Package: cstools-vn (debian/main) > Maintainer: Ashley Clark <aclark@debian.org> > 85305 cstools-vn: It can't be install with cstocs Can/should this get a [REMOVE] tag? The whole point of the bugreport is that it is fundamently the same package as cstocs and all the changes have been merged back into cstocs. The bug could be changed to ftp.debian.org, as a removal request, but that has to be done by the developer, right? > Package: doc-linux-ko (debian/main) > Maintainer: Chu-yeon Park <kokids@debian.org> > 94095 package should be trimmed or split Why is this serious? 93 MB packages aren't against policy, last time I checked. (If it it, it'd be nice to include the appropriate citation.) Possibly important, but it's fundamentally a wishlist bug - "I don't like how you're doing this" type thing. (Yes, it sucks, but it's not broken.) > Package: doc-rfc (debian/main) > Maintainer: Kai Henningsen <kai@debian.org> > 92810 doc-rfc: license is not DFSG-free You do realize that half the documentation in Debian would be removed under this principle? gcc.info, at the bottom of the "Funding Free Software" section says "alteration is not permitted". If there is to be an exception for that, then you're on no stabler ground than those that would argue that general textual documents aren't software and don't fall under the DFSG. It'd be nice to have some clear agreed-upon rules on this. -- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg
Attachment:
pgpuZQF3N7FHj.pgp
Description: PGP signature