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

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free


On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 01:04:39PM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:

I'll say that again since you ignored it.


> [snip]
> > Hmm.  So removing these packages from non-free will make it impossible for
> > Debian to be used as a platform for Java, E-commerce, or web browsing with
> > Netscape?
> > 
> > What exactly is it that Debian users absolutely will not be able to do with
> > a Debian system if the General Resolution is passed?
> Write latex documents using WYSIWYG. In other words use lyx. Sorry but quite a 
> lot of people still use latex instead of the lat^Hmest and greatest software

Package: lyx
Priority: optional
Section: contrib/text

lyx is in contrib, not non-free.  lyx will remain in the Debian archives.

> Use a few PCMCIA GUI frontends that happen to depend on bxforms.

If they are DFSG-free, they can stay in contrib.

> Use anything working on/with Java

This would come as a big surprise to the guys I work with.  They've been
doing Java development on Debian boxes for months, and it would be a big
bummer to have to tell them they can't anymore.  Somehow this General
Resolution will make it so that Debian boxes magically no longer work with
Java.  Imagine that.

> Use any NVIDIA hardware as the drivers happen to be binary only

These drivers are presently packaged for Debian?  Where do people get it
now?  If Debian removes non-free from our archives and bug tracking system,
will NVidia decide to stop making these drivers?

> Use any Lucent soft modem hardware as it happens to have some binary only 
> components.

This software is presently packaged for Debian?  Where do people get it 
now?  If Debian removes non-free from our archives and bug tracking system,
will Lucent decide to stop making this stuff available?

> Use... Ad naseum...

It appears you do not understand the General Resolution at all.

> I personally do not give a fsck about java, but Branden would you be so kind 
> to port lyx to a different toolkit before advocating what you are advocating 
> for.

Would you please be so kind as to attempt to comprehend the General
Resolution before sending me a laundry list in private mail?

> Being the developer responsible for Xwindows it is in your area. 

It's not called "Xwindows".  man X.

I am not responsible for every piece of X-related software in existnce.

> And of course convince the upstream developers that they use a different 
> toolkit.

Upstream developers can do whatever they please and this General Resolution
imposes nothing on them.

G. Branden Robinson            |   <joeyh> oh my, it's a UP P III.
Debian GNU/Linux               |   <doogie> dos it.
branden@ecn.purdue.edu         |   * joeyh runs dselect
roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |   <Overfiend> that ought to be sufficient :)

Attachment: pgpYhYEzbUCPb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: