Re: ITP seahorse
On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 09:29:39PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > But putting it in non-US/main would be equally legal: it only depends
> > on packages in main and non-US/main. Policy dates back to a time when
> > non-US was not split, and I would like to argue that putting it in
> > non-US/main makes a lot of logical sense.
> Fine, argue about this on -policy. But don't bring this poor guys simple
> question about "here and now" into this debate. As it stands now, that is
> where it should go. If he uploads it today, that is where he should upload
> it. Nothing to debate about that until the rules have changed.
Good point, although the rules don't actually prohibit putting it in
non-US/main, they just say that it can go in contrib.
> It's so sad to see something so simple turning into a policy debate.
contrib, for the most part, contains DFSG-free packages which depend
on non-free software. non-US/main doesn't. So I don't think this
question is so obviously simple: there are good arguments for both
possibilities. I could say more, but here is not the place.
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/