Bug#45318: PROPOSAL] Ammend contrib definition

1999-09-19 Thread Joseph Carter
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 02:22:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > 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'

Bug#45318: PROPOSAL] Ammend contrib definition

1999-09-17 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 02:22:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > 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. I second this proposal. Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian g

Bug#45318: PROPOSAL] Ammend contrib definition

1999-09-17 Thread Edward Betts
Anthony Towns wrote: > ] 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 "no

Bug#45318: [PROPOSAL] Ammend contrib definition

1999-09-17 Thread Anthony Towns
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 ]