On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:06:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:03:20AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > By the way, doc-rfc is an example of a package in non-free which is > > useful to some people. If a person is doing network development, they're > > likely to need this documentation and [because someone doing network > > development often needs to be disconnected from the stable internet] > > having the documentation packaged and available locally would be useful. > > Why this is all nice and true, I fail to see the point why the > documentation absolutely needs to be on an APT source with debian.org in > it. It's been a couple of days. I suspect you have your answer. -- G. Branden Robinson | Damnit, we're all going to die; Debian GNU/Linux | let's die doing something *useful*! branden@debian.org | -- Hal Clement, on comments that http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | space exploration is dangerous
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature