Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Severity: important > > This severity is wrong. A disagreement with the content of a > documentation file does not have "a major effect on the usability > of a package". Please don't gratuitously exaggerate the > importance of bugs.
I think that it is important, because to me the text sounds as if flamewars (or whatever other disagreements) are continued in the binary package, and that is clearly inappropriate. It's technically irrelevant, but it violates the "Our priorities are our users ..." in the Social Contract. Even if the text is not meant to sound like this, if it does to some ears, it's inappropriate. >> The README.Debian file currently starts with: >> >> ,---- >> | README for Debian Autoconf package >> | ---------------------------------- >> | >> | No documentation, because the Debian project has decided that the GNU >> | FDL is not an acceptable license for documentation. If you disagree >> | with this decision, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can't >> | do anything about it by myself, so filing bugs will do you no good. >> | Sorry. >> `---- >> >> A README.Debian file is not the correct place to indicate your >> disagreement with debian-legal's, or rather the project as a whole's, >> decisions. > > Every fact in that paragraph is correct, and no opinions are > stated. IMHO, every fact in the paragraph except "no documentation" does not belong into a README.Debian file. And I might be overinterpreting things, but when it says "If you disagree..., write. I can't do anything" I read between the lines: "In my opinion, this is wrong, and debian-legal should be bugged about it. A lot." Maybe I'm wrong here, and there's a different background (like lots of users reporting bugs and arguing with you instead the legal people). But still, I'm sure I am not the only person who'll read the text like this. > It does not even take a side--instead, it says that if > you disagree with the project's opinion, you must take it up with > the project, not with me. The goal is to discourage filing more > bugs complaining about the lack of documentation; I can't do > anything about that, short of writing a manual myself. There's one bug open about the missing documentation. Therefore I don't see why such a statement could be useful. > The autoconf-doc package didn't exist when I wrote the > README.Debian. It is probably a good idea to do these things > now, although I do not like the idea of adding more references to > non-free software. Please do so, and please rephrase the text in a more neutral way. Thanks for considering, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
