Re: stability of non-free?
'Heiko Schlittermann wrote:'
>
>For a long time now I wonder why contrib and non-free are out of stable
>and unstable. Shouldn't the structure be somewhat reorganized have
>somewhat _like_:
>
> stable ---+---- free (or supported, or ...)
> +---- contrib
> +---- non-free
>
> unstable -+---- free
> +---- contrib
> +---- non-free
There have been two posts saying why not, but so many don't understand
that I'll add my "no" to the chorus: NO! Hiding non-free under other
directories make it harder for CD vendors to notice it and avoid
problems. The suggestion of having stable/unstable under the non-free
directory is the only acceptable change. Its main problem is who will
maintain it? Is the distinction sufficient? Does it matter enough? I
have no strong opion on this, but lean slightly toward leaving the
status quo alone (Simplicity :).
--
Christopher J. Fearnley | Linux/Internet Consulting
cjf@netaxs.com, cjf@onit.net | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society)
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf | Design Science Revolutionary
"Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller | Explorer in Universe
--
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
Reply to: