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
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
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
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
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'm
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?
Ron,
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 against
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]
* 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
10 matches
Mail list logo
