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

Re: Fwd: RFS: gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Nikita V. Youshchenko <yoush@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Samuel Bronson <naesten@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>
> wrote:
>> >> Samuel, thanks for doing this. However, I'm trying to get gcc-4.5
>> >> removed from unstable soonish, so I would like to see this for
>> >> gcc-4.6 (and 4.7 as found in experimental). Could you do this?
>> >>  Nikita, could you sponsor the package?
>> >
>> > Sure, that was my real goal anyway; gcc-4.5 just looked lonely without
>> > its documentation, and it didn't seem like it would be much more work
>> > to do them both than to just do gcc-4.6.
>> I wonder if I should interpret the silence from Nikita as meaning "not
>> now, I'm busy"?
> Sorry for silence.
> I will try to look sometime soon, but can't promise when. Hoped to do so on
> this weekend, but weekend is already over and I did not.  Real life
> sucks :(

Yeah, that's more-or-less what I guessed.

> Btw, I don't claim "ownership" for these packages. I never did. I just once
> packaged gcc-doc because nobody did, and I did not want debian stable
> without gcc-doc. So absolutely don't object someone else uploading
> gcc-doc. Maintainer for gcc-doc has been always set to
> debian-gcc@lists.debian.org

Yeah, I didn't think you did, and I doubt Matthias does either.  On
the other hand, as the last person to touch this stuff, it seemed
plausible that you might find it easier to review than anyone else,
and that you might have a particular interest in such packages getting

> Just beware of ugly licensing issues. Ensure that gfdl.1 is forced in by
> the dependences, etc

Yeah, I didn't touch that aspect of the control file at all, so I
think I'm safe there. (And the description for gcc-doc-base makes this
fairly clear, in any case.)

Reply to: