Re: stability of non-free?

[Dirk.Eddelbuettel@qed.econ.queensu.ca]

  Yves> We definitely have to do something regarding this problem.  I think
  Yves> that non-free is definitely part of the Debian system, and favors
  Yves> option 1 (free/non-free inside the debian stable/unstable hierarchy).
  Yves> What do you think ?

  Dale> I disagree. The whole purpose of non-free is to divorce those
  Dale> packages from the distribution. Non-free has nothing to do with
  Dale> stable vs unstable.  

I disagree with the disagreement. Of course has non-free something with
stable or not: Whether code is new and untested (hence "unstable") or old and
tested (hence "stable") has nothing to do with the entire legal matters
(which are therefore orthogonal to implementation aspects) of the copyright.

I second a two-layer scheme as 
	
	debian/non-free/stable/binary/
			       binary-all/
			       binary-alpha/
			       binary-m68k/
			       binary-sparc/
	debian/non-free/stable/unstable/binary/
				       /binary-all/
				       /binary-alpha/
				       /binary-m68k/
				       /binary-sparc/

--
Dirk Eddelb"uttel                             http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd

--
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