Re: Bug#282688: RFP: autoconf-doc -- Documentation for autoconf, automatic configure script builder
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 01:38:08PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl> writes:
>
> > Since 2.59a-1 of autoconf, it does not have documentation anymore. Due
> > to the complexity of the packages, it would be really nice to have
> > documentation for autoconf in sarge.
> >
> > I'm therefore requesting for this documentation to be packaged
> > separately. Note that since GFDL documents in main are acceptable for
> > the Sarge release, you may upload to main now. After sarge is released,
> > however, this package would probably need to be moved to non-free.
>
> The rationale in GR 2004-004 for delaying the implementation of
> GR 2003-003 is that we don't have time to implement it before
> release. It would then be pretty hypocritical to start adding
> packages that violate DFSG. What, we have time to *add* packages
> containing FDL documentation, but not time enough to *remove* FDL
> documentation from packages?
FWIW, I think it's also hypocritical to change the SC immediately after
sarge's release, but not hold sarge (aka the official Debian
distribution) up to the standards of the new SC. So, a user reads
http://www.debian.org/social_contract, thinks it sounds good, downloads
and installs Debian stable, and ends up with something that doesn't
actually abide by what he just read, despite our seeming promise that it
does. That just seems really wrong to me.
I understand the idea that releasing sarge ASAP is more important than
releasing it as 100% free. However, don't these games that we have to
play with the SC just to make sarge releasable indicate a major flaw in
the language of the SC?
--
For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
Reply to: