Your message dated Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:01:09 +0100 (CET)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#356447: /usr/share/common-licences: please add GFDL
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)

--- Begin Message ---
Package: base-files
Version: 3.1.11
Severity: wishlist

Hi,

since GFDL without invariant sections has been decided to satisfy
the DFSG, could you please add the GFDL to /usr/share/common-licences?

-Ralf.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1) (ignored: LC_ALL set to 
en_US)

Versions of packages base-files depends on:
ii  base-passwd                   3.5.11     Debian base system master password
ii  mawk [awk]                    1.3.3-11   a pattern scanning and text proces

base-files recommends no packages.

-- no debconf information
-- 
Ralf Treinen
Laboratoire Spécification et Vérification
CNRS, École Normale Supérieure de Cachan, INRIA Futurs
http://www.lsv.ens-cachan.fr/~treinen


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Ralf Treinen wrote:

> Package: base-files
> Version: 3.1.11
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> Hi,
> 
> since GFDL without invariant sections has been decided to satisfy
> the DFSG, could you please add the GFDL to /usr/share/common-licences?

Sorry, no. /usr/share/doc/base-files/FAQ still applies.
[ See Q. Why isn't license "foo" included in common-licenses? ]

There is already a bug against debian-policy for this, so I don't
think we need to duplicate it.

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to