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

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free

** 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.

> 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


Attachment: pgpqtQtYnKvcI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: