Andrew Wigglesworth wrote:
> the same answer probably also applies to gnupg-doc since vrms is not
> very accurate.

No.  vrms was specifically designed for Debian, as a tool to check the
non-free packages that Debian distributes.  It is pointless to have
vrms in gNewSense, because gNewSense's sole purpose is to be entirely
free GNU/Linux distribution.

The reason why vrms spits such information for GFDL-licensed
documentation and other packages that fail DFSG and are in Debian's
non-free section (but are considered free by the GNU Project and RMS)
is that vrms is developed for Debian, and the maintainer(s) try to
follow the Debian Policy and practices (which is understandable).  I
only object for the package name, it has to be changed to vdfsg or
something similar.  

This is outrageous:

              Non-free packages installed on patilan

autoconf-doc              automatic configure script builder documentation
automake1.9-doc           A tool for generating GNU Standards-compliant Makefile
emacs21-common-non-dfsg   GNU Emacs shared, architecture independent, non-DFSG i
gnu-standards             GNU coding and package maintenance standards
make-doc                  Documentation for the GNU version of the "make" utilit
tar-doc                   documentation for the tar package
  Reason: GFDL with invariant cover texts
texinfo-doc-nonfree       texinfo and info documentation that is non-free

  7 non-free packages, 0.2% of 3215 installed packages.

gNewSense-users mailing list

Reply via email to