-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [I'm moving this to debian-policy]
On 1 Oct 1997, Guy Maor wrote: > Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > [About zip and unzip moved to non-free] > > > > They are still in bo (main). > > I'm going to reopen this bug. > > There were a _lot_ of package movements besides this one in hamm. > Must I duplicate them all in bo? I those movements are like the zip/unzip one, I think so. Otherwise we can not claim that Debian 1.3.1 r"whatever" is fully DFSG-compliant. > Perhaps it's reasonable to keep the old definitions of non-free/contrib > for bo (the READMEs there still refer to the old definitions), and to > use the new definitions only for hamm? This would be, of course, the easiest solution. But: would we doing the right thing? Debian 1.3.1 is still being sold on CDs. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNDJufCqK7IlOjMLFAQGv/gP/b0ddm9K1guuXu05e16g1/nBSVg9EFGvR J9hcPPyRZhjhTH/N2MO3wOxBb7DP586wlwLs9rsowKt9SMnG9qZ/dfJ4eI8CrjDl ISngVnYftENgNa+hgKAlj9acN01HIXC5APzWxqXJoHE7QOsos7l1mZbN6LneTxVv iAcMczI6aAg= =IMcZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
