On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:42:25PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:07:08PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:54:13PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > > The bug being more than 60 days old, does it mean that we have to move > > > > glibc to non-free (and with it, half of the archive to contrib)? It > > > > would be faster to move everything to non-free. > > > > > > Neither the SC nor my proposed text enforce moving stuff to contrib, > > > > It does, packages in main cannot (Build-)?Depend upon non-free, hence > > must be moved to contrib. > > > > If you move linux to non-free (ignoring the blatant silliness of such an > > action), every package that needs linux-source would move to contrib. > > Say kernel-package, m-a, all the kernel-patches, iptables, ... > > everything. And ... even the glibc since it uses linux-libc-dev to > > build, so in turn 90% of Debian shall go to contrib. > > Don't you find it a bit contradictory that you're arguing that we should > "bend SC #1" and at the same time argue that if we don't, we have to interpret > SC #5 in such an overzealous way that compels us to do things that are not > even in the text? Huh ? If you go _your_ route, we should not bend any rules, to the point where we break. I'm saying what it really means to not adapt and find a more pragmatic solution, and you're saying _I'm_ advocating strict interpretation ? Please... -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpT_hdxk4RM5.pgp
Description: PGP signature