[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Criteria for inclusion in Debian other than DFSG?

Please let me know if there is a better Debian mailing list to discuss
this. I've been involved in a discussion on debian-mentors on this
topic[1] that was ultimately inconclusive.

I am wondering if there are guidelines for what gets included in Debian
other than what is required by the DFSG. The FAQ says only:[2] 

> Although Debian includes only free software, we do not include all the
> free software in the whole world. (Although we do include so much that
> one can understand people thinking we include it all.) What software we
> choose to distribute is Debian's own decision, and no one else's. In
> particular, we are not obligated to distribute FOO. 

I understand that if I am not a Debian Developer, and can't find anyone
to sponsor a package I want in Debian, then there's no right to demand it
be included.

But what if I find a sponsor, or I am a Debian Developer (which hopefully
will happen soon[3]) willing to maintain the package myself? What does it
mean for it to be "Debian's own decision" whether to distribute a
particular package?  

I'm particularly interested in the case where someone argues that a
package is redundant (someone suggested this with my ITP for
salonify[4]), or "too simple" (as someone argued in the discussion on

I'm not looking to stir up trouble here, just wondering if there are
semi-objective criteria out there that I've missed for how these disputes
are resolved.
Adam Kessel

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2003/debian-mentors-200309/msg00067.html
[2] http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
[3] http://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=adam%40bostoncoop.net
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200307/msg01373.html
[5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2003/debian-mentors-200309/msg00079.html

Attachment: pgp3KxLKICCEH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: