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

Re: NEW handling ...

On 10231 March 1977, David Schmitt wrote:

>> > Collecting tidbits of
>> > information concerning the various packages rotting in NEW and making
>> > that information public.
>> A list of packages-in-NEW is available on the Web, including binary
>> package names, bugs closed, et al.
>> Nothing more can be done by the average bored DD, since they cannot access
>> these packages, hence not do most of the necessary checks.
> Isn't there a mirror of NEW on merkel? 

Yes, but you cant read anything else than .changes files in NEW.

> rte (3 years): discussion on debian-legal[1] ended without answer to James 
> Troup question about details: 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/10/msg00090.html
> Legal status: Package DFGS-free, possibly patent-encumbered, Need checking of 
> video MPEG layer-2 encodings status.

Encoding mpeg stuff is an enforced patent, and thats not a good thing to
get a package in.

> kernel-patch-2.4-{blooper,pom} (1 year): 
> * Fixes for minor annoying kernel bugs
> * Netfilter patch-o-matic patches to base level, IPSEC policy match
> Both should be superceded by debian-kernel. Could be REJECTed.


bye Joerg
Some NM:
graphviz: ouch, that license is hard to read, damn lawyer gibberish.

Reply to: