On Saturday 05 March 2005 10:59, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:55:25PM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Sven Luther wrote: > > >I have some real trouble with the fact that all the work i do for debian > > > is reported to the US secret services or whatever by the ftp-masters > > > and our archive handling services, and i certainly did *NOT* agree to > > > this being the > > >case. > > > > Everyone subscribed to debian-devel-changes gets notified of every > > change you make; and we certainly welcome everyone to subscribe to that, > > including the US export bureau or secret service. That we happen to > > provide a slightly briefer summary for the BXA doesn't really change > > that in any way. In fact, the summary excludes the names of package > > maintainers as well as other information that gets posted to > > -devel-changes. > > Yeah, ok, but then how does this interact with automated NEW processing for > not-really-NEW packages ?
As ajt said in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2005/03/msg00104.html: | It's not a technical issue it's a legal one -- our approach to satisfying | the legal requirements for including crypto software in main require us to | manually process each package with a new name. Yes, it really is necessary. Searching through my d-d-a archive I found: http://www.debian.org/legal/cryptoinmain Somewhere in the middle of the document it details, that a written notice _on paper_ has to be sent to the NSA. But instead of rehashing well known points, Sven could compile a public(!) list of packages needing processing from http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html with explanations and pointers why which action should be taken on them. I am sure, a research robot (like Martin Schulze for stable point releases) would be able to add valuable input to NEW processing. Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15