[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 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 Is this outdated?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 possib
[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Is this outdated?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 quest
Hi,
though stars is in the main section, it presently requires unpackaged
data files (probably considered non-free) to work.
See: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=276467
You'll find a request to lower the priority of the bug report there,
but I think the purpose of the RC severi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 05:12:15PM +0200, Tobias Stefan Richter wrote:
> > > rlpr is in the same state as pavuk above.
>
> > I didn't look into pavuk, but rlpr has as far as I see no weird state.
>
> You seem to be right, though previous
>> > pavuk (unfixed; bug #264684) for DSA-527
>
>> pavuk 0.9pl28-3 fixed that. #264684 is left open only for the other
>> security hole mentioned there. We might need a DSA for that hole..
>> I'm not explicitly tracking it since it already has an RC bug.
>
> Package is in a weird state in the archi
Today four torcs-data* files went into sarge (partially hinted),
while the actual application/game torcs hasn't even entered sid.
The data debs only recommend torcs, but I see only very limited use
in them standalone. Let alone without even the possibilty to install.
Would the current state be f
6 matches
Mail list logo
