#1140526 link in §2.2.1 to REJECT-FAQ is broken

Package:
src:debian-policy
Source:
src:debian-policy
Submitter:
Jonas Smedegaard
Date:
2026-06-22 08:45:01 UTC
Severity:
normal
#1140526#5
Date:
2026-06-22 07:59:05 UTC
From:
To:
§2.2.1 refers to REJECT-FAQ as the URI
https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html but that link is broken.

Raising severity since Debian Policy seemingly at no place explicitly
state that source packages must contain the source code that upstream
prefer for their modification (as opposed to intermediate autogenerated
data). Seemingly that requirement is deferred to that external URI
which is now missing (probably since the split of the DFSG team).

 - Jonas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=vhA3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
#1140526#10
Date:
2026-06-22 08:17:14 UTC
From:
To:
Maybe you should report it against ftp-master, because the Debian policy team
cannot fix this website.

Cheers,
#1140526#15
Date:
2026-06-22 08:33:25 UTC
From:
To:
I think you seem to be assuming that the bug report is "the link is
broken". The bug report is "the Policy links to a page that intentionally no longer
exists".
#1140526#20
Date:
2026-06-22 08:36:20 UTC
From:
To:
(this link is in a footnote)
merely informative, and are not part of Debian policy itself." (§1.1)

Either the Policy should have specific DFSG interpretations explicitly,
whether "the project’s current working interpretation of the DFSG" as a
separate document exists or not, in which case it should be a separate bug
report, or it shouldn't, in which case the only bug report needed is to
fix/remove the footnote.
#1140526#25
Date:
2026-06-22 08:42:33 UTC
From:
To:
Quoting Bill Allombert (2026-06-22 10:17:14)
https://salsa.debian.org/ftp-team/website/-/commit/d538eb8

I interpret that as a deliberate removal (which is what I was expecting
as well, but lacked proof of), and I interpret the commit message as
that team not wanting to discuss that issue further.

 - Jonas