On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 11:39:00PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > The assertion that we will have all free software packaged in Debian > is ludicrous; we may have much of it packaged, and we should work to > package any that we do not have , but there may exist LSB free > software not in Debian. Particularly for fast-moving targets it may > be better for our users to use LSB packages than native debs. has EVERYONE forgotten what /usr/local is for? non-packaged Free software install procedure 9 times out of 10: ./configure && make && su -c 'make install' packaging is nice, but only when its done with great care, if not i would FAR prefer make install and /usr/local to some crappy half baked package. and don't start with the `but /usr/local is hard to maintain and clean!' if you think that then do the following instead: ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/stow/package && make && su -c 'make \ install; stow install package' or however stow is called... sheesh. > developers to do the same. I do agree that sacrificing implementation > quality is a valid tradeoff and that we should not do so to support > non-free software. what? you agree breaking our distribution for the sake of non-free is acceptable? i don't think the social contract says that at all, and that does NOT serve our users. > I believe that regardless of whether we have a non-free archive, our > users will want to be able to install third party (both free and > non-free) software on their machines. I believe very much that thats what /usr/local and /opt are for. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgppjDVybWV34.pgp
Description: PGP signature