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

Re: Packages to be removed from hamm



On Fri, May 29, 1998 at 03:02:48PM -0700, David Welton wrote:
> > > ircii             21683  ircii: ircii is non-free! [26]  (Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@debian.org>)
> > > tkirc                    depends on ircii
> > > 
> > > In addition to these two packages, bitchx and epic should also be
> > > removed.
> > 
> > Afaik, the ircII issue has not been resolved yet.  Removing all of the major
> > ircII-based clients is crippling hamm.  Wait for resolution of the problem
> > before you go out of your way to hurt the entire dist.
> 
> I would tend to agree - infact, I maintain epic, and it irks me to see
> it go into non-free. 

I'm know that.  =>  Um, could you be persuaded to compile the ircII's with
the xon/xoff option off?  I kinda like to use ^s/^q in the client and ^s is
bound to toggle_stop_screen by default anyway.  I'm not sure there's a large
need for xon/xoff anymore (I'm about to be corrected I'm sure) but it's just
a suggestion.


> > I think this whole mess is being blown WAY OUT OF PROPORTION here.
> 
> Well.. WRT the irc packages, I think so.. their non-freeness is pretty
> dubious (more than anything, they just have an unclear license, but
> the authors seem to think it is free).
> 
> The other stuff is sort of a quandary.. I mean.. standards are
> standards, and aren't worth much if anyone can edit and redistribute
> them;-)
> 
> On the other hand, translating, reformatting, borrowing pieces,
> improving in the future.. or forking documentation for other projects
> are all quite valid.  We have yet to really define a good line as far
> as free documentation is concerned.

The question I have regarding the FSSTND is this:  Does it matter since we
plan to move to FHS in slink anyway?  <g>

Attachment: pgpZqC9etpmu5.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: