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

Re: Intent to NMU mozilla and ITP mozilla-cvs

To quote Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>,
> >>>>> "David" == David B Harris <dbarclay10@yahoo.ca> writes:
>     David> To quote Takuo KITAME <kitame@northeye.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.

Attachment: pgpSM5RaREE8u.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: