On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:09:27PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Anthony> total main contrib non-free %main %contrib %non-free > > Anthony> bo 1188 980 31 115 82.5 2.6 9.7 > > Anthony> hamm 1852 1524 101 227 82.3 5.5 12.3 > > Anthony> slink 2664 2269 97 298 85.2 3.6 11.2 > > Anthony> potato 4305 3889 123 293 90.3 2.9 6.8 > > Anthony> woody 8766 8291 203 272 94.6 2.3 3.1 > > Anthony> --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Anthony> sarge 10283 9734 257 292 94.7 2.5 2.8 > > Anthony> sid 11168 10555 306 307 94.5 2.7 2.7 > > Hmm. I think this is kinda compelling argument for let it > > wither on its own school of thought. > I think it would be a more compelling argument if the number of non-free > packages was decreasing *absolutely*, and not just relatively. [...] > Setting aside for the moment the idea of weeding out everything that's > currently there; do we really want to allow *new* non-free packages to > be uploaded to the archive? Perhaps a closer look at any non-free > packages that have been added since potato's release is warranted. It would be better to attack the lower hanging fruit of packages that are buggy, unmaintained or admittedly useless. mpg321 might be a good example. non-free packages that have RC bugs might make others. non-free packages with RFA's in WNPP or that are orphaned also. non-free packages like those John Goerzen's said he maintains -- that no one would shed a tear over if they disappeared. I'd be really overjoyed to see someone other than myself help clean out that sort of unnecessary junk. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Attachment:
pgpvn5nBgrL15.pgp
Description: PGP signature