To quote Sam Hartman <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > >>>>> "David" == David B Harris <email@example.com> writes: > > David> To quote Takuo KITAME <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > >> I've just done build new mozilla package. It's separated into > >> multi binary package. But still not split libnspr4 from > >> mozilla source. (Is it needed?) > > David> I believe it would be good to have Mozilla and other > David> Mozilla-dependent applications in main/, if at all > David> possible. > > This certainly was not the consensus of debian-legal when discussion > of Postgres happened. I believe that consensus was well motivated and > should generally hold. > > We want a secure operating system; that means we want to support > crypto interfaces. If this pushes stuff into non-us, then non-us > grows. Oh, most definetly! If the options are: a) Not have Mozilla at all, b) Only have a cryptoless Mozilla - nothing else, c) Have all of Mozilla in non-US(with crypto, of course), d) Have most of Mozilla in main, but with -psm in non-US, I'd prefer d), and I think most people would. That's what I was asking Takuo; if it's feasible to seperate the PSM stuff into different sources, and have everything work. If that's not feasible, then by all means put it in non-US(if that's where -legal feels it should be). >From what I've been told, depending on what legal says, Myth will upload a neutered version to main, and a crypto version to non-US/main. Personally, I'm just sick and tired of the BS, and think that waaay too many users are suffering because of it. David Barclay Harris, Clan Barclay Don't panic.
Description: PGP signature