Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Nobody can stop you from creating a package of it. Folks on the Debian > > project can collectively decide whether or not the project should be a > > party to distributing it. > > Currently the only procedure we have in place for this, short of > convincing the maintainer to withdraw it, is a GR.
Well, except for..
1. package is rejected by ftp-masters for whatever reason they feel like
or simply left to rot in Incoming forever (mplayer)
2. DPL[1] asks ftp-master to remove a package
3. project decides to relegate a class of packages to an alternate
repository (non-us)
4. maintainer is removed from Debian project for any of the reasons
listed in the DMUP, or any other reason, and package is removed/rejected
then or later due to lack of maintainer
5. project decides informally that a class of software is not in scope for
the distribution (all DFSG free windows-only or macos-only software)
6. project decides informally that potential legal liabilities outweigh
the benefit of putting some software in Debian, applies this on a
slightly ad-hoc basis (certian possibly-patent-infringing software, but
hardly all of it)
7. content of package referred to tech committee, who overrule the
maintainer[2]
8. black helicopters
9. we all end up wanking in this thread forever whilst being titillated by
ubuntu, never release again, and so the point is moot
Hmm, no GRs there.
My personal bets for the case that spawned this thread: 1, 6, 5, or 8^W9.
--
see shy jo
[1] I hesitate to provide constitutional cites because it's like
spreading blood in the water, but depending on the situation,
this could easily be allowed under 5.1.3, 5.1.1, or 5.1.4. Or just
see #1 above and consider who has oversight.
[2] That's 6.1.4
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
