Re: new port: and the winner is....
On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
> The social contract says "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software".
> Such a win-port might indeed serve some users. But for my own part, I do
> have some personal problems with making all free software win-compatible.
> Does it serve Free Software? Such ports frequently lead to crippled
> design [1] and frankly, I do not like to give people more excuses for not
> switching to an entirely free OS.
Well, we cannot have Debian that runs over the Microsoft Windows(TM) kernel,
since the Windows kernel is an extremely non-free component, and nothing on
Debian can have a dependency on non-free *software*. Therefore there will
never be a Debian for arch "Windows" (or whatever it gets called).
Someone could always port Debian to the Windows kernel, but they should not
call it Debian anymore, and it has no place in our archives (because it is
contrib [or non-free?] and too big to be inserted in the contrib
distribution).
> find some problem with package foo and file a bugreport (most probably
> critical) to the maintainer of foo who has to look into the problem,
[...]
> Instead, I would consider downgrading the bugreport to wishlist/wontfix.
I have no idea how others would deal with it, but I'd file it under "won't
fix", "wishlist" (unless it is a honest-to-goodness bug that should be fixed
just by the pleasure of stomping one of those critters).
Oh, I could be persuated to fix such a bug if I am upstream for the package
OR if someone will pay me enough to generate even more Debian time (because
I'll need to divert less time to keep myself fed and clothed). But I will
not lose any of my Debian time to a non-free port.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: