Hi Ron,
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 01:54:42PM +1030, Ron wrote:
> What is not obvious to me, is that the "invariant section" here (in at
> least the case I quoted) does anything of that sort at all. In this
> case it just seems to make explicit something which has always been
> the case, and which w
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 01:54:42PM +1030, Ron wrote:
> I don't profess to be an authority on the details of this, which is why
> I'm seeking clarification -- but it does seem fairly obvious to me that
> any invariant section which inhibits our freedom to modify the source is
> clearly not DFSG free
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:34:26AM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:04:41AM +1030, Ron wrote:
> > If use of the the invariant section is the bug here, then it appears to
> > me that in this file at least, it is quite redundant and changes nothing.
>
> Yes, it's the i
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:04:41AM +1030, Ron wrote:
> If use of the the invariant section is the bug here, then it appears to
> me that in this file at least, it is quite redundant and changes nothing.
Yes, it's the invariant sections that are the problem. Honestly, don't ask me
why (like you, I'
Hi,
Thanks for the list, thats a very helpful start, though I confess that
looking through a sample of some of those files, I'm a little confused
as to what the issue is with some of them...
I understand that if the docs are being split into their own separate
package, then it makes sense to mov
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 08:54:47AM +1030, Ron wrote:
> To do that though I mostly need an authoritative list of what we
> consider unacceptable source that would block the release. When we
> have an expert opinion on that I can swing the hatchet as required.
Here's the list of what's been removed
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 12:13:02AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The corresponding bug in gcc-4.1 was #384036, which lists gcc/doc/gcc.texi
> "and probably others". Matthias, could you please comment on whether there
> are any "others" known that need to be removed in order to resolve this bug?
>
The corresponding bug in gcc-4.1 was #384036, which lists gcc/doc/gcc.texi
"and probably others". Matthias, could you please comment on whether there
are any "others" known that need to be removed in order to resolve this bug?
Ron, is there any chance that mingw32 could be changed to build agains
* Matthias Klose ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061014 05:59]:
> The package (at least the source) contains GFDL docs with invariant
> sections and/or cover texts.
Can you please be a bit more verbose about that?
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
Package: mingw32
Version: 3.4.5.20060117.1
Severity: serious
The package (at least the source) contains GFDL docs with invariant
sections and/or cover texts.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10 matches
Mail list logo
