Re: Problems with 1.2.1
> "contrib" has the status of "not maintained" software. Therefore
> I would consider it as "unstable" anyways.
Actually, "contrib" is overloaded to mean several different things.
Some packages are not maintained, and I agree that these packages
should be considered "unstable". But some of the "contrib" packages
_are_ maintained, but for example they need Motif libraries to compile
(as far as I know, Lesstif is not quite ready yet, and it is not
compatible with Motif 2.0). This is completely orthogonal to the
stability of the package.
> I view "non-free" and "non-us" as special sections - moved from
> binary-i386 into a special place for legal reasons. Dividing them in
> "-stable" and "-development" would consequently mean we should divide
> "mail" and "x11", too.
Once the non-free section becomes large enough, it may be a good idea
to divide it in mail, x11, etc. But the important thing is that there
should be separate "stable" and "development" versions of non-free and
Hmmm... non-US is orthogonal to non-free, so maybe the non-US part of
Debian should be divided in free and non-free too? (Even in the US,
someone could make a special Debian CD with free crypto stuff, and sell
it to US customers only.)
> With the scheme Lars suggested, we do not need to divide "-stable" and
> "-development" for every subset of the Debian distribution.
But I think we still should. If a package is not maintained, the same
version would appear in "stable" and "development" (using symlinks to
save space), and the fact that it's in the "contrib" subdirectory makes
it clear enough that it is not officially supported.
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