Re: Statistics on non-free usage
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:33:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Also, installing java stuff from third party sources is a pain. See for
> > > > example the problem with mozilla-cvs and mozilla-snapshot, which you
> > > > have to hand fix in the postinst. Also, there is no 1.4 .deb for powerpc
> > > > for example.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure how this is germane to the discussion. We've already
> > > established that there are no packages of recent Java implementations
> > > that we *can* distribute in non-free, so it doesn't affect the question
> > > of keeping non-free.
> > Well, it establish that third party debian packages are in general of
> > lower quality than debian debian packages, even those which are in
> > non-free.
> No, it sought to establish that certain repositories were of lower
Yes it is, and if you want to prove to us that this will also happen
with non-free outside of debian, then go ahead and show us that you are
able to setup the needed infrastructure, and of having a non-free out of
debian archive of better or at least no worse quality than what is
currently in non-free. And don't say you are not interested in non-free
software, it is your (in the global sense of you and your codisciples)
proposal, and the result of the proposal will mean more work for the
people maintaining stuff in non-free, but you don't care about that.
> It hasn't even done that; as I have had to use Java from third-party
> repositories at work for some time and have not noticed it being any
> lower quality that non-free packages in Debian.
ah, because you used it on x86. wasn't that one of the arguments for
removing non-free ?
> The lack of 1.4 for PowerPC is not really germane; Debian doesn't have
> it for PowerPC either and Debian doesn't keep non-i386 archs in sync
And how would removing non-free from the debian archives help here.