Re: stability of non-free?
> email@example.com (joost witteveen) writes:
> > Should packages in non-free be somehow more stable than
> > the ones in unstable?
> No, non-free packages are at least as unstable as unstable.
Thanks, this is what I've been telling all disappointed users too.
This begs the question, however, why we so very mutch dislike
people pressing CD's of "unstable" ("Debian 1.0"), while non-free
is OK (as long as the CD distributer is willing to take the risk).
> > Or, is it OK to make non-free packages depend on unstable, and
> > maybe we should add a README to non-free, explaining
> > that the packages in there are viewed as unstable as "unstable",
> > and that the packages in non-free may depend on "unstable"?
> A better idea would be to add a line to the package's description.
> `foo depends on bar, which is currently only in the unstable
Good suggestion. I've just uploaded gs-aladdin_4.03-3, without this
warning, but I'll set this on my todo list. Thanks.
Use Debian/GNU Linux!
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com