Re: Bug#282688: RFP: autoconf-doc -- Documentation for autoconf, automatic configure script builder
Brian Nelson <email@example.com> schrieb:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 01:38:08PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
Are we going to change the SC after sarge's release? Are you planning a
But I agree that it might be a good idea to put a note about the sarge
exception, or generally about not-yet-compliance, on the webpages.
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich