Re: Status of KDE/Qt - interim decision

[Philip Hands <phil@hands.com>]

> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
> cas>On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
> 
> cas>> The problem is not the dependence upon non-free things (otherwise we
> cas>> would just dump contrib)
> cas>
> cas>why dump contrib?  it's a good place to put stuff which is useful but
> cas>doesn't quite meet the criteria for inclusion in debian main.
> 
> 	I think Philip meant 'dump it in contrib' . (btw, I remember Craig
> saying how he remembered the details of the issue yesterday.)

Oh, this arose from ``depend'' being used in a general way, in a context that 
made me think that what was being referred to was a ``debian dpkg style
dependency''.

Given that misinterpretation, I ended up thinking that the thing to which I
was replying was effectively saying that we should remove things that are
free, but ``depend'' on non-free stuff (i.e. what contrib is for, so if that's 
what you think, dump contrib).

As far as I can tell, what was actually being said was that we should drop 
GPLed code that is _linked_ against non-free libraries (which is effectively 
my own position, so no reason for discussion)

I hope that clears that up.

I certainly wasn't suggesting we dump contrib.

Cheers, Phil.