Re: Changes to packages.wml [was Re: packages.debian.org has moved. Please update translations]
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 01:23:58PM -0700, James A. Treacy wrote:
> > The main reason I'm complaining is that the user which visits that page does
> > not need to know the intricate details of our developmental process. Trying
> > to push all that (rather abstract) information to them might confuse and/or
> > bore them.
> >
> > (Hey, there's something wrong with this picture -- I'm the one who is
> > usually being accused of making the web pages not too user-friendly! ;)
>
> I agree that the pages should be user friendly. Sometimes that means leaving
> out details - which is different from having misleading info.
>
> Simply because I don't want to miss out on the fun of being flamed, I have
> included a diff with my suggested changes to the latest version in CVS
Looks great, please commit it...
> --- packages.wml.orig Wed Apr 4 16:25:15 2001
> +++ packages.wml Wed Apr 4 16:25:34 2001
> @@ -11,10 +11,9 @@
> Software Guidelines</A>, assuring free use and redistribution of the
> packages and their complete source code.
>
> - <P>There are also some additions to the <EM>main</EM> distribution, that
> - have certain restrictions not allowing them to be part of a 100% free
> - software distribution like Debian GNU/Linux. Still, they are provided by
> - Debian as a service to our users, and they include:
> + <P>As a service to our users, we provide packages in seperate sections that can not
> + be included in the <EM>main</EM> distribution due to a restrictive
> + license. They include:
> <BLOCKQUOTE><DL>
> <DT><EM>Contrib</EM></DT>
> <DD>Packages in this area are free themselves but depend on other
But perhaps change s/a restrictive license/various legal restrictions/
because a package can be in another section because of a patent.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: