On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 04:25:03PM +0000, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: > The document in question is in a human-readable format. It may be a > pain to edit, but it is not impossible, and it is certainly not > illegal! I do not see any practical benefit of removing helpful > documentation just because some old markup, simple enough to recreate, > has gone AWOL.
I don't care _that_ much about this specific kind of issues, let me just
reply to a couple of issues, just for the sake of the arguments. The
fact they are not illegal is not relevant, the bug was not arguing they
were, but rather that they violate DFSG #2. Similarly, we all agree
there is no "benefit" in removing the documentation, but some of us
contend we _must_ do that nevertheless, to respect a DFSG
principle.
(By the way, this is not necessarily my personal position, I believe
documentation might deserve a different status than software, but given
that the project has precisely argued it should be treated the same way
as software, we must *all* accept that.)
Bottom (and pragmatic) line: as long as there is a disagreement on this
kind of issues, we are stuck. You should probably resort to the release
team and/or ftp-master for a binding answer on what would be an
acceptable way of dealing with this RC bug.
Thanks for your quick feedback and package maintenance!
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
