On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 01:34:23PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:41:49AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Sorry, I have to disagree with these bug severities; Suggests: are just not > > important enough in our packaging system to treat them as release-critical, > > regardless of what's being suggested, > My concern is about the rar writing support itself, not about Suggests. The > Suggests tag is just an indication that either the application supports > generating rar archives (or that there's a mistake, and the maintainer just > mean to suggest "unrar" instead). > > and it is generally considered > > acceptable to Suggest: non-free packages from main anyway. > Well, that's not the problem. If the application needs unrar to extract rar > archives, then suggesting unrar is ok [1]. It's the fact that the application > supports creating rar archives that I believe violates the DFSG. > Does this explanation satisfy you? If it does, I'd like to rise the severity > back to serious (I don't think it's an issue for the release, being only 4 > bugs). > OTOH, if you think my interpretation of DFSG is inadequate, I could try to > expose it better, and we could also move this to -legal (perhaps I should have > started there in first place). Yes, I still disagree with this reasoning. People of conscience may disagree on whether *preventing* the creation of files that can't be read with free software is serving the goals of the DFSG. In the absence of agreement on this point, I don't think it's right to treat this as a release-critical bug unless the *maintainer* agrees with you. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature