Re: stability of non-free?
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 10:18:06 CST "Larry 'Daffy' Daffner"
> Philippe Troin writes:
> -> On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 13:38:54 +0100 Christian Schwarz
> -> (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> -> > On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, joost witteveen wrote:
> [ a) non-free directories under stable and unstable ]
> -> > But if we consider non-free stuff _NOT_ as part of the Debian system, we
> -> > should propable do the following:
> [ b) non-free directory with stable/unstable directories ]
> -> I think that non-free is definitely part of the Debian system, and
> -> favors option 1 (free/non-free inside the debian stable/unstable hierarchy).
> -> What do you think ?
> Putting non-free under stable and unstable would make things thoat
> much more non-obvious for CD makers, it would seem, as well as
> semi-officially sanctioning the non-free stuff, which is against the
> Debian philosophy. I believe I remember reading a blurb somewhere
> that while we recognize the need for the non-free stuff to get the job
> done, we as an organization don't agree with the licensing sceme, and
> therefore, it's there for the convenience of Debian users.
If you think that if might be problematic for CD makers, then let's have a non-free/stable and a non-free/unstable directory. Mixing both stable and unstable packages in the non-free directory is quite messy and confuses a lot of users: typically you get messages saying, non-free package XXX depends on package YYY, but I can't find it anywhere... while it is in the free stable hierarchy.
Separating stable from unstable in the non-free hierarchy should fix this.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com