[наб] > Because one of them says lsdvd and has lsdvd 0.17 > but the other one says acidrip and doesn't.
Ah, I was blind. I only noticed the structure, not the details, of those URLs. I do not know if acidrip might distribute lsdvd or not, but the lsdvd URL is a much better source. > Thus, the one that says acidrip can't possibly fulfil policy 12.5. Do not really know if this is true myself, and do not believe such simple and most likely cut-n-paste typo in d/copyright is enough to ask for the removal of lsdvd. In any case, I hope the lsdvd maintainer got time to look at this issue soon, to render the question moot. In other news, I am working on preparing lsdvd 0.18, and hope to have it stamped soon. Will most likely not be able to release tarballs, unfortunately, only tag the git repo. :) -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen
