Your message dated Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:18:12 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line bash documents built again from the bash source
has caused the Debian Bug report #491030,
regarding bash-doc contains no documentation
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
491030: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=491030
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: bash-doc
Version: 3.2-4
Severity: important
GFDL or not, the Bash documentation is important and worthwhile. If you
do not believe that it can be packaged as free software, is there any
reason not to upload it to non-free? Given that bash-doc USED to
contain useful and worthwhile documentation, how hard can it be to
change the name to bash-doc-nonfree and upload it into non-free? If you
don't want to touch it, I would love to do so if you or someone would
sponsor the thing.
Whether you like the GFDL or not, obliterating the documentation for GNU
software that is an essential part of the system rather than moving it
to non-free is non-sensical.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.25 (SMP w/4 CPU cores; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 4.3-1
--- End Message ---
