[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niels Möller) writes: > Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> How about the Nettle manual? That seems to be appropriate, too. > > No, it's inconvenient to use a file that is subject to updates (for > every update to the file, the testcase would have to be updated as > well, which kind-of defeats the idea of automatic regression testing).
Ah, I see. > That's why I liked using an RFC; they are never updated after > publication. And using a fixed outdated version of the nettle manual > seems silly. It would be better to shop around at project gutenberg. I can't find any small gutenberg file, but I didn't look much. Perhaps the Debian Linux Manifesto? /usr/share/doc/debian/debian-manifesto or http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/ap-manifesto.en.html > I don't expect to have any time for a new nettle release in the near > future. I and my fiancé will be having a baby in a few weeks time... Good luck! ;) > You may also have the option > > 2. Remove the non-free material from the source, e.g., by re-packaging > the upstream archive and adding a 'dfsg' version name to it. > > if I understood the bug report correctly. I don't quite understand the > pros and cons of the different options. A 1.14.whatever version is > fine with me, if you think that's a good solution to the problem. Removing the file and disabling the particular test that needs it seems OK to me. /Simon
