[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about http://release.debian.org/sarge_rc_policy.txt ?
Is this outdated? Serious question - I might not have noticed
a change here. Please help me out if I'm wrong.
| Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable,
| and wherever possible
Hi,
though stars is in the main section, it presently requires unpackaged
data files (probably considered non-free) to work.
See: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=276467
You'll find a request to lower the priority of the bug report there,
but I think the purpose of the RC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 05:12:15PM +0200, Tobias Stefan Richter wrote:
rlpr is in the same state as pavuk above.
I didn't look into pavuk, but rlpr has as far as I see no weird state.
You seem to be right, though previous attempts to cleanly remove this
package
pavuk (unfixed; bug #264684) for DSA-527
pavuk 0.9pl28-3 fixed that. #264684 is left open only for the other
security hole mentioned there. We might need a DSA for that hole..
I'm not explicitly tracking it since it already has an RC bug.
Package is in a weird state in the archive
4 matches
Mail list logo
