On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:15:45 +0100, Sven wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:17:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes: > > > The question is that we will block this package from enterring > > > debian because of a clause which may, maybe, also have blocked > > > other packages which we would not like being removed. But again, > > > it can be dealt with at another time. > > If you know of any, we should discuss them. Are you saying the rule > > is being applied unfairly? If so, we need to have the details so they > > can be discussed. > Sorry, i have not time to investigate, but i am sure many of the > documentation we have cause problems, and we didn't look into it too > much, because, well, it is documentation and not software. Also i guess > this was the reason about some mails a while ago which looked into > documentation issues and licences. Also i think many of our > documentation may fail DFSG 2, about source code issuses. For instance, many (most) of the documents included the tetex-base package fail DFSG 2, and many don't have explicit licenses. Bug #131191. I'm sure there are many more such problems throughout Debian. Best, Dylan Thurston
Attachment:
pgpHOBHjAq4g5.pgp
Description: PGP signature