Re: Please stop the discrimination of non-free packages
Jules Bean <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> It would be useful without automation. Simply maintain a (probably
> short) list of non-free packages which autobuild nicely, and
Are you volunteering, to do so? Was Adrian? If not, you better do
so, so _you_ don't ``discriminate'' against non-free packages!!!!
In any event this fails to address several other points people have
raised and introduces others.
 Such as Richard's point about dependency on non-free or unpackaged
software, or Branden's point about the fact that we simply don't
want to and who are you to try and make us or judge us for not
doing so? Or the fact that we're unequivocally and obviously
lagging in porting our main packages, why on earth should we
``discriminate'' against free software packages in main by
prioritizing non-free above them?
 Such as the fact that people running the auto-builders
(i.e. taking the legal risks) have to rely on the legal skills of
the ficti^H^H^H^H^Hhypothetical person who maintains this
 NB: this is not the same as main, non-free licenses are often an
order of magnitiude harder to grok correctly compared to main