On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 15:11 +0200, Adeodato Simà wrote: > This (which Erinn mentioned in her original mail): > > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml > > The full document is not exatcly short, but if you read the first part > of it (until "Contributions and Support documents"), you should get a > good overview of what's wrong with the GFDL.
Having read that document, I agree that the GFDL shouldn't be kosher for use on Debian stuff in any way. I don't have much of any experience with legalese things, but it seemed pretty straightforward. > No, they are autobuilt by dedicated machines. [Extra bit: The reason > for the proposal to reduce the number of architectures is not the work > load that 11 architectures mean for individual maintainers, but for a > small number of developers (e.g., the Release Managers).] So *that's* what people are talking about when they say something along the lines of "the buildd's are backed up," etc. Or so I assume. Thanks for clearing that up. Another question that's been on my mind from time to time: how do package maintainers deal with packages that have upstream authors, but are sort of "customized" for debian in their packages? Do they have some way of easily re-doing the changes that they've made when packaging new upstream releases? (e.g. Firefox has a different icon, etc... I can't seem to think of any good examples at the moment.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
