Why 2.1 is delayed for so long

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On Sat 2014-09-20 09:17:03 -0400, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 13:49, infinity0 at pwned.gg said:
>> Previously (with gpg 1.4) it contained the actual
>> documentation. Perhaps Debian should just package the manual.
>
> The manual is build by default. Debian should install it; after all it
> is one of the very few GNU manuals which does not use the FDL at all (it
> is GPLv3).

Which manual are we talking about here?  debian packages should already
ship the man page and the DETAILS.gz.

are we talking about some of the things that we ship (kind of) in
gnupg-doc?  I asked about the data contained in debian's out-of-date
gnupg-doc package recently [0], but have gotten no response on that
thread, and the package was removed from testing about a year ago with
no complaints.  This makes me suspect it's not being actually used.

If there's a particular manual that we're not shipping but should be,
please tell me specifically which manual and where i should look for the
source.  I'm happy to make sure we ship it.

all the best,

         --dkg

[0] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gnupg-maint/2014-September/001760.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 948 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20140922/8863d157/attachment.sig>