[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: