Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
I demand that Colin Watson may or may not have written...
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:38:59PM +0000, Darren Salt wrote:
>> Better would be to remove those packages from non-free for which there are
>> free equivalents. To help the transition, said free equivalent(s) must be
>> available in stable before the non-free package(s) in question can be
>> removed.
> What's an "equivalent", though?
That'd have to be discussed, probably...
> I wouldn't use any other newsreader than trn (well, trn4 normally), because
> I like the interface; I don't consider the other newsreaders replacements
> for it, or I'd be using them already.
Given that, the package should stay - at least until you find that another
one with a suitably good interface. But, of course, you'd have to check for
a "possible removal" bug and add comments to it... or something like that,
anyway. No doubt somebody'd complain about some package no longer being in
stable... (yes, I use pcnfsd...)
It seems more likely that packages will disappear through lack of maintenance
and old RC bugs; perhaps this is what it should be.
> [ trn4 came within a whisker of being BSD-licensed not so long ago,
> until upstream realized he didn't actually own all the code. :( ]
:-\
--
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | linux (or ds) at
| Linux PC, Risc PC | Northumberland | youmustbejoking
| No Wodniws here | Toon Army | demon co uk
| This space reserved for future expansion
The minute a man is convinced that he is interesting, he isn't.
Reply to: