* Tobias Stefan Richter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041022 21:30]: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > some remarks from me on that issue: > > - we don't enforce that data matches the DFSG for release of sarge
> We don't? > Might be true, but then this is the first time I hear about this. > > How about http://release.debian.org/sarge_rc_policy.txt ? > Is this outdated? Serious question - I might not have noticed > a change here. Please help me out if I'm wrong. | Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable, | and wherever possible should be under a DFSG-free license. This | will likely become a requirement post-sarge. (And please don't argue that the star catalogue is not documentation - it's definitly not program, the other thing listed on that page.) > > - stars (and derivants) have a longer history in resolving that issue. > > Though I'm unhappy that stars is now not directly usable, I think the > > general tendency is ok. > I be honest I don't know what the current tendency is here and googleing > didn't help me. Is there a chance for DFSG free data files to be packaged > really soon? Yes. First, there were some programs which included non-free star catalogues. Then, it was decided to split the catalogues off to seperate issues - and IIRC there are free ones, and non-free ones. So, the catalogues are now removed from stars. The next step should however be to package them appropriate in main or non-free. > > So, unless the maintainer asks for removal, I don't think that starts > > qualifies for removal _now_. Of course, if the problem is not fixed > > before release of sarge, we might still consider to do it. > Well, I wasn't opting for a removal from Debian, just from sarge. > > In my eyes one purpose of the bug tracking system and it's RC severity > is to automate the task of considering the packages for release. > If the bug is closed by an upload of a working release of stars > with dependencies satisfied in main - fine. > Otherwise what's the purpose of having stars in sarge, when we agree > it's not acceptable to release the present state of it? I think the way to go would be to get some information from the maintainer what his solving strategy would be. If he has a doable one, we might wait a bit of time for that. If not, the decision about this package could still happen. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
