On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:52:36AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > That said: a vote to get rid of non-free when non-free is empty would
> > have different significance than a vote to get rid of non-free when
> > non-free contains packages some people rely on.
> Now, assume that non-free is not empty, but all the packages in it are
> orphaned and broken.
All the software that's in non-free (or contrib, or main) that's orphaned
and broken should be removed post-haste.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature