Your message dated Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:50 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line And now for the 2 years and older (bugs closed as well)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 1 Dec 1999 10:28:30 +0000
Received: (qmail 1937 invoked from network); 1 Dec 1999 10:28:29 -0000
Received: from mail.enterprise.net (194.72.192.18)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 1 Dec 1999 10:28:29 -0000
Received: from linda.lfix.co.uk ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [194.72.195.121])
by mail.enterprise.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA06326;
Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:28:24 GMT
Received: from lfix.co.uk ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by linda.lfix.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-6) with ESMTP id KAA28098;
Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:28:23 GMT
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Authentication-Warning: linda.lfix.co.uk: Host [EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1]
claimed to be lfix.co.uk
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 (debian)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove references
to non-free from main
In-Reply-To: Message from Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
of "Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:44:49 PST." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 10:28:23 +0000
From: "Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk>
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.0
Severity: normal
Joseph Carter wrote:
>I think the keyring belongs in non-US/main, but it can't get there until
>20 September 2000 unless we change our policy to not consider US patents
>as making something automatically non-free.
I did not realise that was the policy, but I see this in 2.1.4:
`Non-free' contains packages which are not compliant with the DFSG or
which are encumbered by patents or other legal issues that make their
distribution problematic.
Patents are almost entirely a US problem; `other legal issues' is very
vague, but if it makes distribution a problem, the package should probably
not be in the archive at all.
All packages in `non-free' must be electronically distributable across
international borders.
Would a patent lawyer agree that software that violated US patents is freely
transferable into USA? Has anyone taken any advice on this?
In any case, I think it is wrong for US problems to dictate what is free or
not.
<PROPOSAL>
This is a formal proposal to change policy to read thus:
============================================================================
2.1.4. The non-free section
---------------------------
`Non-free' contains packages which are not compliant with the DFSG.
There must be no legal issues that hinder the packages' being freely
distributable from the archive. Non-free packages may have restrictions
on their being included in a distribution for sale; checking such
restrictions is the responsibility of the person making the
distribution.
All packages in `non-free' must be electronically distributable across
international borders.
2.1.5. The non-us server
------------------------
Some programs with cryptographic program code must be stored on the
"non-us" server because of export restrictions of the U.S.
This applies only to packages which contain cryptographic code. A
package containing a program with an interface to a cryptographic
program or a program that's dynamically linked against a cryptographic
library can be distributed if it is capable of running without the
cryptography library or program.
Packages that violate US patents must also be placed on the non-us server.
============================================================================
</PROPOSAL>
This leaves open the problem of what to do about packages that violate
patents of other countries; since they are currently in non-free, our
mirrors host them anyway.
We should probably maintain a database of legal issues against packages, to
make it easy for people to see if there is anything they should exclude from
mirrors.
--
Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/
========================================
Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1
========================================
"Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is
like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises,
doing wonders?" Exodus 15:11
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 51702-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Nov 2002 01:51:22 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 14 19:51:22 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from pcp559992pcs.rthfrd01.tn.comcast.net
(glaurung.green-gryphon.com) [68.52.105.148]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18CVdh-00076k-00; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:51:21 -0600
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) with ESMTP id
gAF1fp4J008258;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:52 -0600
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Debian-8) id
gAF1fpAi008254;
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:51 -0600
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.2 (via feedmail 9-beta-7 I)
To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: And now for the 2 years and older (bugs closed as well)
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu)
(i386-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Time: Thu Nov 14 19:41:50 2002
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^"B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
&YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]>*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,>aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78"OsbQ["56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.>b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIa>xWg&1VcjZk[hBQ>]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(>6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzb&i0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:41:50 -0600
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=5.0
tests=NOSPAM_INC,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Hi,
======================================================================
* #51702: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove
references to non-free from main
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: "Oliver
Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk>; 2 years and 351 days old.
patents are, unfortunately, no longer a US only thing. There was no
discussion. Crypto issues have changed since then, and we have a
non-free GR approaching. I do not think this is an active, and
actionable item for the policy group; I am thus closing this bug.
======================================================================
======================================================================
* #53582: [PROPOSAL] Obsolete base section
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Joey Hess
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 2 years and 324 days old.
Sounds reasonable. There were no objections, and this is quite
obviously true currently; and then the Debian installer shall shake
things up again). This is going in.
======================================================================
======================================================================
* #54002: [PROPOSAL] permit use of bzip2 for source packages
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Chris
Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 2 years and 317 days old.
This proposal is premature; we need to see the tools updated, and
then, if needed, formalize it into policy. I suspect that since
policy is not dpkg documentation, this shall never need be in policy;
but I need to go over the document ands double check that.
======================================================================
======================================================================
* #54524: http_proxy and web clients.
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 2 years and
312 days old.
This seems like something being designed, and, thus, not yet a policy
issue. There has been no action for 2 years, and I am closing this
bug. If indeed we have current practice with /et/proxies or something,
a new bug/proposal can be created.
======================================================================
======================================================================
* #54985: debian-policy: handling of shared libraries
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Matthew
Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 2 years and 308 days old.
There does not seem to have been a consensus on this issue, or a
technically superior position (in my eyes).
======================================================================
======================================================================
* #60979: What /etc/init.d/xxx restart does?
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Radim Kolar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; merged with #87994; 2 years and 238 days old.
Isn't this now being standardized by LSB?
======================================================================
======================================================================
* #62768: policy on kernel module sources needed (unpacked or not)
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: "Alan W.
Irwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; merged with #63598, #71805; 2
years and 210 days old.
* #63598: policy on kernel module sources needed (unpacked or not)
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Ulf
Jaenicke-Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; merged with #62768,
#71805; 2 years and 195 days old.
Why is this a policy issue? Do we really need to mandate absolute
conformity in modules packages? Whether you do a tar zvvfx in
MODULES_LOC or you di lndir there, you do get the same results.
======================================================================
======================================================================
* #62996: no way to detect webservers without CGI support
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Rev Simon
Rumble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 2 years and 205 days old.
This is not a policy issue yet, this is a design and implementation
issue. Please try to get the httpd package maintainers together and
work out a solution; and then we can put the working solution into
policy.
======================================================================
======================================================================
* #65577: [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not
a part of Debian distribution
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Taketoshi
Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 2 years and 156 days old.
Hmm. I don't know. Does it seem like we have consensus?
======================================================================
======================================================================
* #65578: [PROPOSED] extra-Debian packages should have extra Priority
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Taketoshi
Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 2 years and 156 days old.
No discussion at all, and I think that it blurs the priority and
sections a bit.
======================================================================
======================================================================
* #65764: changelog shouldn't be in the copyright file
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Josip Rodin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 2 years and 153 days old.
Hmm. Sounds like we have a winner here. How about a diff, then, folks?
======================================================================
======================================================================
* #69864: debian-policy: Update section 6.7 for "examples packages"
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Adam C Powell
IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 2 years and 84 days old.
This too sounds reasonable to me, but there was no discussion at all.
======================================================================
======================================================================
* #72980: virtual packages list layout
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Josip Rodin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 2 years and 45 days old
Ok. This is going in..
======================================================================
======================================================================
* #73620: [PROPOSED] Policy example about INSTALL is wrong
Package: debian-policy; Severity: wishlist; Reported by: Yves Arrouye
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 2 years and 43 days old.
This has already been answered by more recent changes in policy.
======================================================================
======================================================================
whew.
manoj,
--
pediddel: A car with only one working headlight. "Sniglets", Rich
Hall & Friends
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
