Firstly, I don't think this follows. It is right that the criteria for accepting a new package are stricter than the criteria for removing an existing one. Secondly, the actual question of what should be in these packages is precisely a policy question. We should decide what our policy is and then apply it. (Of course examples can illuminate the policy.) So I don't think your queston can be answered until we know what the policy should be. By "don't disagree" I don't mean "agree". I mean that the rejection seems plausible and I haven't seen enough arguments to have a firm opinion. If the policy we decide on is that the packages with just symlinks should be folded into the packages they provide links to, then yes those packages should be fixed but it is IMO unlikely to be sensibly considered an RC bug. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.