Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 09:14:26AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> Well, not necessarily. Is it possible to ignore only the kinds of
> dependency problems that involve missing packages, not ones that involve
> out-of-date packages? The latter are obviously bad even in contrib,
> whereas the former are legal there.
Not really, and that would be very confusing for things like "libgal42"
versus "libgal41". It'd be possible to maintain a list of "fake" packages,
but if we're going to spend that much effort for the sake of non-free
software it'd make more sense just to keep maintaining it in the first
place, IMO.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Reply to: