I second that. But maybe we still need a canonical list of problematic packages, and the CBP status would only be aplicable to inform wannabe packagers that there's an ongoing analysis on the "packagability" of that software. On second thought, I'm not sure it would be worth it, but I like the idea... (how unconclusive!) Cheers On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 08:23, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > Hi andy.grafham! > > You wrote: > > > Is there any way of requesting the BTS to move a package from > > "Requested" to "Can't be packaged"? I was investigating packaging > > "VisualBoyAdvance" a gameboy advance emulator, but it looks like > > license problems will make it impossible to include in debian. > > AFAIK, there is no automatic way of doing this. > What about adding a new tag, something like CBP (cannot be packaged), to > the wnpp? > > -- > Kind regards, > +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Bas Zoetekouw | GPG key: 0644fab7 | > |----------------------------| Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 | > | bas@o2w.nl, bas@debian.org | a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 | > +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ -- Leo Costela <costelaaa@ig.com.br> | <costela@debian.org> | <costela@pop.com.br> Key Fingerprint: 8AE6CDFF6535192FB5B659212262D36F7ADF9466 "you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest... with... a herring!"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part