Hi Osamu, First and foremost I have updated the m17n-docs source package and I've uploaded it to: http://sinhala.sourceforge.net/files/m17n/
There is one Lintian error with the manpages that I'm waiting to hear from upstream about before I decide how to fix it. On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 23:53 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > This bug 466922 for m17n-db is blocking other packages such as scim-uim > to build. Why? What's the relationship between scim-uim and m17n-db? > I think we should attack this situation in 2 steps. > > Let's review situation: > > There was bug #465661 for m17n-db claiming binary-without-manpage > usr/bin/m17n-db. This was based on policy 12.1 which states: > > Each program, utility, and function should have an associated manual > page included in the same package. > > It is mere "should" whereas the basis of bug 466922 was policy 2.2.1 > which states: > > In addition, the packages in main > * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or > execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", > "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main > package), > > Yes, this is serious policy bug. > > First, we should avoid serious bug if possible even with minor > shortcoming. The correct thing to do is: > > 1. File bug to get unreasonable move to non-free (already done) > 2. Just "Suggest" m17n-doc for now. (Once m17n-doc is back in main > change it to depends if you think that is right thing). Really, it is > only policy with "should" so "Suggest" may be enough. (at least to me. > But I may be wrong) Dicussion on debian-devel: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/02/msg00636.html > I agree moving m17n-doc to main is right thing. But the order of action > should be carefully thought out. Please remove m17n-doc from depends > now and set suggest. Since I have updated the m17n-doc source package, would it be better to upload that, even with the minor Lintian manpage errors? > Iwai-san, are you still active? Omote-san who seemed to uploaded his > package, can you comment? This package seems practically orphaned. > > Considering 434044, Harshula should hijack m17n-doc package unless we > get response from them in a week or so. I will be happy to see m17n-db > maintainer taking charge of all related packages. I already announced ITH back in November 2007: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/11/msg00440.html > I was quite surprized by the non-free move. GFDL without invariant > section seems to be OK to be in main. I suspect it happened before the 2006 Debian vote on the issue. > Osamu > > PS: The upload to main may need to happen after requesting removal of > current non-free one. What's the procedure for that? Thanks, # -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
