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

Re: Bug#281672: marked as done (autoconf: non-free documentation)

Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes:

> * Debian Bug Tracking System (owner@bugs.debian.org) [041123 20:55]:
>>    * Removed documentation.  Hope this makes everyone happy.  Closes:
>>      #281671, #281672, #143536.
> No, it doesn't. I hope that you don't mind to much for speaking
> that.

Take it up with debian-legal.  They've concluded that the GNU FDL
does not satisfy the DFSG, and that everything in Debian
(apparently modulo licenses themselves) must satisfy the DFSG.
Autoconf's documentation is under the FDL and therefore must be
removed.  Furthermore, there was both an official and an
unofficial vote in favor of making sure that this happens.  I was
opposed, but I can't really go against the will of the whole

> Even more, I believe this upload violates the release policy, more
> specially paragraph 5o:
> | Packages must have a useful extended description.

The extended description is useful as far as I can tell:

     The standard for FSF source packages.  This is only useful if you
     write your own programs or if you extensively modify other people's
     For an extensive library of additional Autoconf macros, install the
     `autoconf-archive' package.  For a book that explains how to use
     Autoconf, Automake, and Libtool in conjunction, install the
     `autobook' package.
     This version of autoconf is not compatible with scripts meant for
     Autoconf 2.13 or earlier.  If you need support for such scripts,
     you must also install the autoconf2.13 package.

Did I screw that up somehow?  I don't think I even changed the
`control' file for this upload.

> Brain Carlson, thanks for doing Debian and the release process this
> dis-service.

There are *lots* more people to thank for this.  Brian Carlson is
just the latest.
"How could this be a problem in a country
 where we have Intel and Microsoft?"
--Al Gore on Y2K

Reply to: