Re: removal suggestion: stars
* Tobias Stefan Richter (tsr@achos.com) [041022 21:30]:
> aba@not.so.argh.org wrote:
> > some remarks from me on that issue:
> > - we don't enforce that data matches the DFSG for release of sarge
> We don't?
> Might be true, but then this is the first time I hear about this.
>
> How about http://release.debian.org/sarge_rc_policy.txt ?
> Is this outdated? Serious question - I might not have noticed
> a change here. Please help me out if I'm wrong.
| Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable,
| and wherever possible should be under a DFSG-free license. This
| will likely become a requirement post-sarge.
(And please don't argue that the star catalogue is not documentation -
it's definitly not program, the other thing listed on that page.)
> > - stars (and derivants) have a longer history in resolving that issue.
> > Though I'm unhappy that stars is now not directly usable, I think the
> > general tendency is ok.
> I be honest I don't know what the current tendency is here and googleing
> didn't help me. Is there a chance for DFSG free data files to be packaged
> really soon?
Yes. First, there were some programs which included non-free star
catalogues. Then, it was decided to split the catalogues off to seperate
issues - and IIRC there are free ones, and non-free ones. So, the
catalogues are now removed from stars. The next step should however be
to package them appropriate in main or non-free.
> > So, unless the maintainer asks for removal, I don't think that starts
> > qualifies for removal _now_. Of course, if the problem is not fixed
> > before release of sarge, we might still consider to do it.
> Well, I wasn't opting for a removal from Debian, just from sarge.
>
> In my eyes one purpose of the bug tracking system and it's RC severity
> is to automate the task of considering the packages for release.
> If the bug is closed by an upload of a working release of stars
> with dependencies satisfied in main - fine.
> Otherwise what's the purpose of having stars in sarge, when we agree
> it's not acceptable to release the present state of it?
I think the way to go would be to get some information from the
maintainer what his solving strategy would be. If he has a doable one,
we might wait a bit of time for that. If not, the decision about this
package could still happen.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Reply to: