Re: ITI: HTTPS method for apt
On 24-Mar-02, 16:56 (CST), Joseph Carter <email@example.com> wrote:
> > So, let the company that is distributing the non-free software donate the
> > time and resources required to build this support into apt.
> So just because it may benefit some hypotethetical commercial project, we
> should not do it? If a developer has desire and interest to write the
> code, why oppose it? Besides, I refuse to accept the suggestion that a
> commercial effort is welcome to do anything for Debian.
Did you really mean to say that commercial companies (are there any
other kind?) are unwelcome to contribute anything to Debian? Because
that's how I read that sentence.
> [Company asks its developers to update released version slink]
> This list opposed the project for two reasons:
> 1. Potato would be out in a month or so anyway, work on that instead!
> 2. We can't allow evil corporate influence affecting the project!
This list is so big that there are bound to be people who oppose anything.
> It was completed in two weeks. Two months afterward, potato was no
> closer to a release. A similar project for Potato to add a 2.4 kernel
> was not commercially sponsored and has generally been supported pretty
> well. Go figure.
Well, it sounds to me like the company made the right choice, and
everyone using slink at that time benefited. Or are you implying that if
the developers involved had spent those two weeks on potato, it would
have been released within the month? That seems unlikely.
I'm not trying to be argumentative about this, Joseph, it's just the
point you were trying to make has missed me completely.
I don't see how a commercial entity writing https support for apt would
do any harm to Debian. People can do what they want with it.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com