Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch"):
> Could you explain why you want to do this with metapackages, rather than
> extending the definition of an archive section so that non-free and
> contrib may be more finely divided up? The various implementation
> problems that have been raised in this thread are all/mostly due to the
> use of metapackages.
Dividing up nonfree would mean that every nonfree package would have
to be classified into precisely one of the categories. Also, once we
have established that such finer classification is useful, we would
want to increase the number of categories, which would be very
heavyweight (and exacerbase the taxonomical problem).
Also, it doesn't really deal with contrib.
Ian Jackson <email@example.com> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.