Re: Bug#282688: RFP: autoconf-doc -- Documentation for autoconf, automatic configure script builder
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:38:08 -0800, Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> said:
> 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?
Yes, it would indeed be hypocritical, were we one homogeneous
collective. But while some people may have time to add packages for
non-free documentation, I don't have time to deal with splitting up
Gnus and make. Since we are a loose knit collection of autonomous
labour units, there is this little discrepancy.
Sorry for not being the Borg.
manoj
--
I am having FUN... I wonder if it's NET FUN or GROSS FUN?
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: