Re: RFS agrep
Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> schrieb:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 04:04:46PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> schrieb:
>> > mizar:[~] apt-cache show agrep G Section
>> > Section: non-free/text
>> > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-resources.en.html#s4.6.1
>> So what? In the first sentence quoted, "in Debian" is clearly not meant
>> in that sense. Still a package named agrep is in Debian's non-free
>> repository, can be installed via the debian-package management tools,
>> can probably be found on some CD's named "Debian", is covered by the BTS
>> and so on.
> This kind of misinformation is exactly why we would be better off without
> non-free. If you had bothered to do some trivial research, you would
> already know that non-free would never be on a Debian CD,
That's clear, as far as non-free as a whole is concerned. But anybody
could add a non-free path to his CDs based on Debian and distribute
exactly the subset of packages that he is allowed to, no?
> and that some of
> the packages in non-free are there exactly because their redistribution is
>> So, is this program the same as the one referred to in the subject?
> It makes no difference to me.
So you think it doesn't matter wether there's two packages named agrep
I accept your opinion that we would be better without non-free. But
since we have it and let "it" use the infrastructure, we have to care
about such things too, of course.
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie