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

Re: Bug#282688: RFP: autoconf-doc -- Documentation for autoconf, automatic configure script builder

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:05:40 +0000, Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org> said: 

> 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.

	Well, as far as I am concerned, the SC was not changed --
 merely the wording was clarified. So, as I see it, we were taking our
 own sweet time getting into conformance with the SC, and we just
 agreed to release Sarge before pushing for strict compliance.

	Compliance takes time.

> 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.

	Nobody, and nothing, is perfect. So we had managed to drift
 out of compliance with the SC. We shall get back into compliance as
 soon as we can. In the meanwhile, we need to release Sarge -- I think
 there is more benefit to the users in releasing Sarge soon as opposed
 to delaying for strict compliance with the SC, which we had not been
 in before anyway.

> 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?

	Not anymore. There was a flaw in the language that caused some
 people to honestly interpret the SC from what is, in my opinion, the
 correct interpretation; and the editorial changes clarified the
 language.  Unfortunately, due to the unclear language before, we had
 drifted from strict compliance, and we are now in the process of
 correcting that.

When I left you, I was but the pupil.  Now, I am the master. Darth Vader
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: