On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:20:26PM -0500, John Lightsey wrote: > A while back I ITA'd the rocks-n-diamonds package. After talking with the > upstream maintainer I realized this package can't be included in Debian > without heavy modification of the upstream version. I'm not going to say > exactly what the problem is here, but it definitely doesn't meet the > requirements of section 2.3 of the policy manual. If you need me to spell it > out explicitly, send me a private email.
No. We don't hide problems. If you expect help, expect it to be given in public fora. Section 2.3 is a little broad for us to be able to guess what the problem is and give specific advice. More to the point, for legal questions, you'd be better off asking debian-legal. I haven't seen your question pop up there yet. Be prepared to give a lot more information there than you have here if you want help. > I'm hoping I can have a new version of this package ready by next week that > meets the requirements of section 2.3, but I'm a bit worried that the current > version will make it into the 3.0R2 or 3.1 releases. If someone with File an RC bug and request the package's removal from testing. Also contact the stable RM to get it removed from stable, if it's really that bad. > experience dealing with copyright issues could take a look at the current > rocks-n-diamonds package and give me a bit of guidance I'd really appreciate How about you tell us[1] what you think is wrong, and we'll give opinions and generally confuse you more. <g> Dancing around the issue like you've done so far does nothing but annoy people. [1] Or, more helpfully, debian-legal, who are the doyens of this sort of thing. - Matt
