On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:42:19 +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > > I don't think the severity is warranted; debian/copyrights lists > > the place where the upstream sources were fetched at the time of > > packaging. After all web sites are in flux all the time, that's > > why we distribute them through our mirror network. > I chose the severity because it's a violation of a 'must' clause in the > policy (and that's what reportbug advised to set). Of course, I'm very > much aware about the fact that web sites change all the time, but I > also do find it very important to properly track upstream sources. I agree that this is technically a policy violation, OTOH it's not really difficult to find the module on CPAN: http://search.cpan.org/dist/FCGI/ > Other than that, I'm inclined to do an NMU to close the bug - the > change is trivial and doesn't affect functionality in the slightest, > after all. Therefore, letting the change through should only be a > formality. Sure, but having an upload just for this line doesn't really help, and bringing the package up2date might be unwanted during the freeze. Since Luk has changed the severity I'd appreciate an input from the release team's side. > But apart from that, I am confused about the state of this package, > wrt. who is currently responsible, The package is in the meantime in the pkg-perl repository; cf. http://lists.debian.org/debian-perl/2008/06/msg00039.html svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-perl/trunk/libfcgi-perl Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : debian gnu/linux user, admin & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `- NP: Sting: Consider Me Gone
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature