Re: Seconded, sponsored. (was Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free)
Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:
> this needs a magic wand to fix properly. we don't have one. nobody
> has one...and even if we had one, it wouldn't make any difference in
> the long run as the next generation will be born just as stupid and
> error-prone as the current one. people aren't very smart, accept that
> fact and move on to something important, something it's possible to
> change.
Here are two ways to solve that problem:
Install vrms on Debian systems by default.
Only put `main' in the default sources.list.
> no, that can never happen. non-free can't hold up the release either
> directly or indirectly - nothing in main depends on anything in
> non-free, and non-free isn't part of the release.
This is good to hear. That's what I originally thought, but people
opposed to removing non-free from the FTP site started saying how it
would damage the integrity of the release; that parts of `main' like
libc5 might get dropped, and so forth, which sounded like the release
might get held up in theory to make sure that such things didn't
happn.
It could be that I'm still confused, so if you would write more on
this issue it would help me.
Reply to: