Re: {debian-legal} Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I can see justification for making a rule that one shouldn't have a
> > dependency on a package with invariant manual sections.
>
> And what justification would that be?
Um, fill it in yourself. I expect you would agree with such a rule.
(A rule like "invariant manual sections can't be in Debian" includes
what you quote above as a special case, right?)
If you agree that there is such a justification, then we can move on.
> > If the primary motivation in this discussion is what's easiest and
> > most convenient for the users, then obviously "keep it in emacs20 and
> > keep that package in Debian" is easiest and most convenient.
>
> Yes, that argument has been raised many times to support putting
> Netscape in main, too.
Right, so the question (which was my *point* in the message you have
quoted here, durnitall) is whether it goes in main, not what the name
of the package is.
Reply to: