Your message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2024 13:45:49 +0200
with message-id
<CAErCQkj8WU5A14p3Z-vBkQg-AyzAgMiU+nCOp=WZuSfK_s=1=g...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Not relevant anymore.
has caused the Debian Bug report #333719,
regarding doc-debian: FAQ: please add entry on non-free 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.)
--
333719: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=333719
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: doc-debian
Version: today's CVS
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi,
Now that non-free documentation is being removed from the main archive,
I expect lots of questions about this to get asked. A FAQ entry on this
therefore would be nice. Attached is a patch.
BTW, I'll file a pile of extra bugreports: I've been proofreading the
entire FAQ, and have quite some more in my personal queue. If you feel
my patches (#333504, #333511) have been OK, you might want to give me
commit-rights. I myself don't really care, sending patches using BTS is
fine with me too.
Thanks, Bye,
Joost
--- software.sgml.orig 2005-10-12 10:15:55.012020834 +0200
+++ software.sgml 2005-10-13 13:37:01.745004041 +0200
@@ -154,6 +154,27 @@
considered obsolete. Please remove any mentions to non-US from your
sources in your <file>/etc/apt/sources.list</file> configuration file.
+<sect id="doc">Where is the documentation for my package?
+
+<p>Lots of popular documentation-specific licenses are not compatible with the
+Debian Free Software Guidelines. Therefore, such documentation is not included
+in the Debian main archive. Examples of such licenses are the GNU Free
+Documentation License (see this <url
+id="http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml"; name="Draft
+Debian Position Statement about the GNU Free Documentation License(GFDL)">) as
+well as the various CC licenses (see this <url
+id="http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html"; name="debian-legal Summary
+of Creative Commons 2.0 Licenses">). Examples of affected packages are <url
+id="http://bugs.debian.org/280803"; name="gcc-4.0-doc"> and <url
+id="http://bugs.debian.org/181494"; name="glibc-doc">.
+
+<p>The documentation you are looking for might be in the non-free area, or
+not distributed by Debian at all.
+
+<p>If you are using Debian <em>sarge</em>, documentation which is not DFSG
+compliant might be included in main: most of the work on this issue has been
+done after the <em>sarge</em> release.
+
<sect id="pine">Where is pine?
<p>Due to its restrictive license, it's in the non-free area. Moreover,
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The removal of non-free documentation e.g. GFDLwas 20 years ago, and
the patch is totally bitrot. Closing.
Ender.
--
Consultor de seguridad - Security consultant
Desarrollador de Debian - Debian developer
--- End Message ---
