Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist Nothing seemed to come of the April debian-policy thread about contrib [0], but there seemed to be a very loose consensus that section 2.1.3 (definition of "contrib") should be changed.
So I'd like to propose that: ] 2.1.3. The contrib section ] -------------------------- ] ] Every package in "contrib" must comply with the DFSG. ] ] Examples of packages which would be included in "contrib" are ] * free packages which require "contrib", "non-free", or "non-US" ] packages or packages which are not in our archive at all for ] compilation or execution, ] * wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free ] programs, ] * packages which we don't want to support because they are too ] buggy, and ] * packages which fail to meet some other policy requirements in a ] serious way. ...be changed to... ] 2.1.3. The contrib section ] -------------------------- ] ] Every package in "contrib" must comply with the DFSG. ] ] Examples of packages which would be included in "contrib" are ] * free packages which require "contrib", "non-free", or "non-US" ] packages or packages which are not in our archive at all for ] compilation or execution, and ] * wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free ] programs. That is, that the only consideration about whether a package should be added to main, contrib or non-free be its licensing terms. Packages that are `too buggy to support' or `fail to meet policy requirements in a serious way' should either be fixed (ideally), or not included in Debian at all. Cheers, aj [0] See: http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9904/msg00192.html -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.'' -- Linus Torvalds
pgpI81HNmkpTd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
