Re: Screw non-free.
* Matthew Palmer [Fri, Mar 12 2004, 05:10:03PM]:
> > in other words - it's not a convenience to have third party debs
> It's not a convenience to provide our name to software we can't modify (for
> practical or legal reasons) to fix bugs. If software authors want Debian's
> QA and integration testing, they can release under a DFSG-free licence.
Please STOP abusing this as a pseudo-argument. Admiting that I have only
one non-free package now, I still request to not provide any additional
QA work; please DO NOT DO IT if you see them as pure evil and share
> As an aside, considering the current state of some (most?) of the packages
> in non-free, you won't be buying that much by having it on Debian's servers
> anyway - not recently built, not built for most architectures, etc etc.
> Hardly a credit to Debian, and certainly not significantly better than what
> you're describing with non-free as an external resource.
What? You are a Debian developer, you should know how to deal with buggy
packages. Why did you not report this problems before? Why did you not
make sure that the problems are fixed OR the particular packages are
kicked from the archive? Or did you deliberatedly wait without making
noise to construct pseudo-arguments right now?
Wenn dein einziges Werkzeug ein Hammer ist, neigst Du
dazu, in jedem Problem einen Nagel zu sehen.
-- Abraham Maslow, Psychologe