On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:44:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
OTOH, if you think my interpretation of DFSG is inadequate, I could try to
expose it better, and we could also move this to -legal (perhaps I should
have
started there in first place).
Yes, I still disagree with this
Package: ark
Severity: serious
Justification: DFSG #4
This package has a Suggests: rar tag. If it has the functionality to create
rar archives via rar, this is a serious problem, because it is encouraging users
to create trap archives that can't be extracted with free software. I believe
this
severity 340704 important
severity 340705 important
severity 340706 important
severity 340707 important
thanks
Hi Robert,
Sorry, I have to disagree with these bug severities; Suggests: are just not
important enough in our packaging system to treat them as release-critical,
regardless of what's
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:41:49AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Sorry, I have to disagree with these bug severities; Suggests: are just not
important enough in our packaging system to treat them as release-critical,
regardless of what's being suggested,
Hi Steve,
My concern is about the rar
* Robert Millan [Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:34:23 +0100]:
Well, that's not the problem. If the application needs unrar to extract rar
archives, then suggesting unrar is ok [1]. It's the fact that the application
supports creating rar archives that I believe violates the DFSG.
Does this
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 01:57:17PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
* Robert Millan [Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:34:23 +0100]:
Well, that's not the problem. If the application needs unrar to extract rar
archives, then suggesting unrar is ok [1]. It's the fact that the
application
supports
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 01:34:23PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:41:49AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Sorry, I have to disagree with these bug severities; Suggests: are just not
important enough in our packaging system to treat them as release-critical,
regardless
7 matches
Mail list logo
