Re: Why the GR is not necessary

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:19:03PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 08:13:28PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > it's fair enough to not have non-free in the default sources.list
> 
> Wrong. From apt 0.3.19's /usr/share/doc/apt/examples/sources.list file
> (which gets copied to /etc/apt in postinst if there's no existing file):

huh?

i made no comment on the current state of affairs re non-free being in
the default sources.list. my comment was that it is "fair enough" if it
doesn't appear there by default, that it's not important enough to worry
about.

what is important is that it is documented, so that those users who want
or need to install non-free packages can do so without jumping through
hoops hunting for the details of what and how to do it.

it doesn't matter, anyway. it seems that the suggestion that i was
replying to was not made as a compromise, it was made as an addition to
the GR.

craig

--
craig sanders