Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:25:08PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
> > > whole project, if you take a bit wider look at it.
> > 
> > Sure. If you are concerned by other packages that don't run on an arch
> > you care about, your are free to provide the work needed to fix it.
> 
> No thanks, I don't feel like fixing non-free.

So, clearly you don't care about those package, so, what is the problem
(mmm, it was the package you care about, not the arch, sorry for the
non-clarity of my sentence).

> > But using this as an example to remove _every_ package from non-free,
> > and the whole of non-free is stupid. 
> 
> It's just one argument. Of course, removing non-free just because of
> that is stupid, but we're trying to bring up arguments for discussion,
> remember?

Now, we are argumenting for the sake of it. Let's actually propose a GR,
and discuss it during the vote-discussion period.

> > What about the packages who are arch: all and those who are well
> > maintained ? You may not be the one using those, but others certainly
> > do, and the maintainer certainly cares about their package enough to
> > have them well maintained.
> 
> We all hope they will continue to maintain them well, on nonfree.org.

And will you provide the infrastructure for it ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther