Re: GR: Removal of non-free
- To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: GR: Removal of non-free
- From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:13:11 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20040101101311.GA26133@iliana>
- In-reply-to: <20031231083616.GA17300@azure.humbug.org.au>
- References: <20031224204311.GA4684@suffields.me.uk> <20031229204125.GA12797@suffields.me.uk> <20031230062352.GG32190@azure.humbug.org.au> <20031230144405.GB17760@suffields.me.uk> <20031231083616.GA17300@azure.humbug.org.au>
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 06:36:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:44:05PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > If not, how are dependencies from contrib on non-free software to be
> > > treated? Should the dependencies of contrib packages just be ignored
> > > version of libc6 only available in unstable or experimental? Or should
> > > contrib packages not depend explicitly on non-free packages at all? Or
> > > should something else happen?
> > Implementation details. This stuff should not be written into a GR,
> > any more than every other change to policy.
>
> Well, the right answers aren't obvious to me; but if no one else cares,
> I'm all for dropping contrib too. That's certainly the least work.
And to be complete, all the non-free installers. And all the non-free
documentation in main.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: