Re: stability of non-free?
On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> 'Heiko Schlittermann wrote:'
> > 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 :).
OK, but then I would suggest something like
debian -+----- free -----+- stable
+- unstable
+- frozen
+----- non-free -+- stable
+- unstable
+- frozen
+----- contrib -+- stable (propably these can be omitted in
contrib)
+- unstable
+- frozen
Note that there shouldn't be any directories/links named stable/unstable
directly under debian, then.
Just my 2 cents,
Chris
-- _,, Christian Schwarz
/ o \__ schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@debian.org,
! ___; schwarz@informatik.tu-muenchen.de, bm955877@muenchen.org
\ /
\\\______/ ! PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
\ / http://www.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/
-.-.,---,-,-..---,-,-.,----.-.-
"DIE ENTE BLEIBT DRAUSSEN!"
--
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: