Hi Ian,
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:35:55PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > While this could be considered in general it is probably not worth the
> > effort to stress test mirrors and autobuilders with these huge packages
> > just for the sake of reintroducing a small piece of documentation which
> > is heavily outdated (covering version 2.5 - we are now at 6.6) if we
> > know that in about six weeks a new version will be out. I actually was
> > that quick with the removal since I assumed that it is not relevant for
> > the package any more anyway. It will be back right in time for the next
> > Debian release if it remains in the next upstream version.
>
> Do you consider the lack of the DFSG-free manual an RC bug ? If so
> perhaps you should file that bug to stop the bad version propagating
> to testing.
Given that we agreed that it is simply a false positive by lintian
neither the current version in testing (including the doc) nor the
current version in unstable (without the outdated / irrelevant doc) are
RC buggy. What I wrote above is that I just do not see any reason to
stress test our infrastructure to re-add something which is not relevant
anyway and will be replaced by a new version relatively (compared to the
freeze) soon.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140520114552.gj6...@an3as.eu
