Hi, On 23.02.2014 06:40, Bas Wijnen wrote: [...] > (https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004) > > So here again the "preferred form of modification" type of definition is > used. But it's written slightly differently, and in the case of things > that do not have source code anymore, we have decided that binary blobs > can in fact be source. Simon also pointed me to the GR vote from 2006. [1] However it seems both of you interpret the result differently. I should mention that the vote failed (you seem to be under the impression that it succeeded) and option 2 "Further discussion" was chosen. That's exactly what we are doing here right now. In my opinion the whole point of this discussion is to find a consensus for team-maintained packages and to discuss this in a smaller circle because I think we can't hope for the perfect solution for everyone. Apparently we haven't found this consensus yet. However speaking with one voice could allow us to appear more united in front of bug reporters, invisible rules would become more transparent to outsiders and it would help new contributors to find the right and wrongs for maintaining games packages more quickly. > I agree that we should be consistent. But that doesn't mean > automatically throwing everything in main. It means making a decision, > and possibly removing those other things from main. I don't intend to to make everything equal. Not all packages are wrongly in contrib or non-free. But free engines and interpreters should whenever possible be part of main because with a little bit of imagination you can add useful documentation or content to them and give them a reason to exist in main. See the sauerbraten-wake6 story for example. Regards, Markus [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-games/2014/02/msg00067.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature