** On Jun 08, Jeff Licquia scribbled: > On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 11:18:36AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote: > > John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes: > > > > > > Mozilla ought to be amply ready by the time woody is released. > > > > But it isn't *now*, which is when you are proposing to throw out Netscape. > > The resolution specifically names woody; potato will "ship" with > Netscape (at least, to the extent Debian has ever shipped with > Netscape). > > Woody won't be an issue, it seems, for another year at least. So why make decissions of that sort *now*? Are you ready to guarantee Mozilla, some replacement for JDK, povray, xanim, a load of math programs, why, even gimp has some share in that - so *will you* guarantee that there will be a free replacement for all of the above (and more)? If such is your promise then go ahead, remove non-free from woody. > > b)having them on the ftp site means people can get packaged-up > > versions of the non-free software they need/want, knowing that it's > > well-maintained and will integrate properly with their system, and > > that any problems can be dealt with via the BTS. > > None of that is impossible with the resolution. The only sticking > point might be the BTS. *only*? > But nothing prevents Debian developers from packaging, signing, and > uploading whatever they want; the only difference is that the archive > they upload to will not be an authoritative upload queue for Debian. *only*?? If you take some time to browse the archive of this thread you will find a post where someone proved that maintaining separate archive for non-free software will actually require devoting *more* time to its maintenance than it is done now! So, ironically, the non-free software will be paid more attention and care than it deserves - which is, as I uderstand, what you and the other supporters of the GR are trying to avoid! Where's the logic? marek
Attachment:
pgpnjG3FQqIoi.pgp
Description: PGP signature