Bug#193787: Oh boy...

2003-05-19 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Mon, 2003-05-19 at 01:39, Martin v. Löwis wrote: > cpp.texi:This manual contains no Invariant Sections. The Front-Cover Texts > are [...] > So cpp.texi is free documentation; the others contain invariant sections. -legal isn't too happy with front or back cover texts, either.

Bug#193787: Oh boy...

2003-05-19 Thread Matthias Klose
Martin v. =?iso-8859-15?q?L=F6wis?= writes: > Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Please could you point me to the invariant-section material? Tried to > > find it, but maybe it's too late here in Europe and I'm not awake :-( > > cd gcc/doc > grep Invariant *.texi > cpp.texi:This man

Bug#193787: Oh boy...

2003-05-19 Thread Martin v. Löwis
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please could you point me to the invariant-section material? Tried to > find it, but maybe it's too late here in Europe and I'm not awake :-( cd gcc/doc grep Invariant *.texi cpp.texi:This manual contains no Invariant Sections. The Front-Cover Texts a

Bug#193787: Info received (was Bug#193787: Oh boy...)

2003-05-18 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report. Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s): Debian GCC maintainers If you wish t

Bug#193787: Oh boy...

2003-05-18 Thread Matthias Klose
Nathanael Nerode writes: > :-( At the moment GCC is the only package with invariant-section material > which I use, which is why I specifically filed bugs against it. Please could you point me to the invariant-section material? Tried to find it, but maybe it's too late here in Europe and I'm not

Bug#193787: Oh boy...

2003-05-18 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Important citations: * Motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue (by Branden Robinson) http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00189.html (Note that the following discussion contains lots of agreement and no serious opposition.) * Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL