Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Some maintainers have already opted to move their GFDL documentation > to non-free for sarge, but the vast remainder will need to be dealt > with soon after sarge's release to keep us on track for etch.
I assume you mean that the documentation will need to be dealt with, not the maintainers. :) My first thought is that the first part of this (reducing the number of archs that get official releases) is a good idea and the criteria seem reasonable. But the second part seems unnecessary. We can easily take the archs that we don't intend to mirror and put them on a different place from ftp.gnu.org; why would they need to be removed from it enterely? Also, the first part has a clear statement of which archs pass its tests at present; but the second does not that I could see. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
