Re: mass bug filing for unmet dependencies
> >You're asking why I think "can be flashed, but works just fine without
> >being flashed" is different from "won't work without being loaded"?
> >
> >Fundamentally, the latter case forces us to not ignore it. The equipment
> >won't work if we ignore the issue.
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> So you say that non-free software is OK with you as long as you can
> pretend it's not there? Which part of the policy or SC justifies this
> theory?
So you say that I was talking about pretending? Which part of what I
wrote justifies this interpretation?
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: