Re: Flame against non-free burning, time to think.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 03:12:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 02:13:12PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 08:03:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > "They should die because they are not needed" is the right approach.
> > > > Time shall solve the problem.
> > >
> > > It hasn't so far. We have added packages to non-free faster than we've
> > > been getting rid of them.[1]
> >
> > That doesn't have to mean anything, because we are generally slow as shit
> > when it comes to weeding things out.
>
> Under Osamu Aoki's theory of package retention, we shouldn't be weeding
> anything out of non-free as long as even one user still finds the
> package useful.
>
> I'd speculate that he feels the same way about main.
I see what the problem is. If one is not reasonable, it can be one
maintainer with whatever reasonable numbrer of people to second its
existance. I can even live with parity between main and non-free.
(like: 3 for main, 5 for non-free)
But bottom line is, these shall not be majority rule. After all there
will be some strange head, some plural number may be a good idea.
Minimum requirement to weed out junk is interesting concept.
--
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32
.''`. Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers
: :' : http://qref.sf.net and http://people.debian.org/~osamu
`. `' "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" --- Social Contract
Reply to: