Your message dated Sat, 28 May 2005 17:14:15 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#310496: Serious policy violation; should be removed from
Debian
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; 23 May 2005 22:58:27 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon May 23 15:58:27 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 92_245.btc-net.bg (grubian.yavor.doganov.org) [213.91.245.92]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DaLsR-0005Mg-00; Mon, 23 May 2005 15:58:27 -0700
Received: from patilan.yavor.doganov.org ([192.168.0.2])
by grubian.yavor.doganov.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1DaLyH-0006Ag-Hd; Tue, 24 May 2005 02:04:29 +0300
Received: from yavor by patilan.yavor.doganov.org with local (Exim 4.50)
id 1DaLsl-0005Z4-3i; Tue, 24 May 2005 01:58:47 +0300
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Serious policy violation; should be removed from Debian
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.12
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 01:58:46 +0300
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: pptview
Version: 8.0-2
Severity: important
The presence of this package in Debian violates the policy, namely
Section 2.2.3[1]. There should be a decision made to include this
package in the pool (on a case-by-case basis), but I couldn't find out
any discussion on -legal or elsewhere.
I am reporting this with severity "important" only in order to save the
precious time of the Release Team, it should be "serious" in all cases.
--
Yavor Doganov
Free Software Association - Bulgaria http://fsa-bg.org
GNOME Bulgarian Translation Project http://gnome.cult.bg
GNUstep Bulgarian Translation Project
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i586)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-386
Locale: LANG=bg_BG.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=bg_BG.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 310496-done) by bugs.debian.org; 29 May 2005 00:14:16 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat May 28 17:14:16 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.197]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DcBRY-0003NX-00; Sat, 28 May 2005 17:14:16 -0700
Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i8so747539rne
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 28 May 2005 17:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=eg1TvRFPXh2cT4BhpWH28oJcZp+iPpibC7ReMHCgbYr+4aC2rLCkNDgt7ZN6POG8UWxXOLmcbLTnq0oUDxvbUfkN6VQiGGA5ZWTabOa+08jRMVmrlyMYqibtcyrjBblx/QTnKUfeuwZsZXiXgUPn/arJ2TAUdYH1+jqxH6hoIWc=
Received: by 10.11.88.42 with SMTP id l42mr25805cwb;
Sat, 28 May 2005 17:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.11.99.15 with HTTP; Sat, 28 May 2005 17:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 17:14:15 -0700
From: Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#310496: Serious policy violation; should be removed from Debian
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
On 5/25/05, Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2005-05-26 00:13:45 +0300 Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With which part of this policy does pptview not agree?
>=20
> I meant the footnote to 2.2.3:
> It is possible that there are policy requirements which the package
> is unable to meet, for example, if the source is unavailable. These
> situations will need to be handled on a case-by-case basis.
The source is unavailable for this package. That's a fairly common
reason for a package to be in non-free. The case-by-case basis the
footnote refers to is the FTP master's choice to accept or reject the
package. In this case the package was accepted. You may, of course,
bring the topic up in Debian legal if you like. In the mean time, the
package is compliant with policy.
Cheers,
Shaun
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
