Re: pine (was: Re: debian-faq: patch5 to remove some outdated content)
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 09:50:45PM +0200, Holger Wansing wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Hendrik Boom <hendrik@topoi.pooq.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:50:25PM +0200, Holger Wansing wrote:
> > > It might be useful, to document these two szenarios, so here we go:
> > >
> > >
> > > <p>Due to restrictions in their licenses source code may or may not
> > > be available for packages in the "contrib" and "non-free" directories,
> > > which are not formally part of the Debian system.
> > > There are some packages, for which the source code is available,
> > > but not distributable via the Debian archive, so it has to be pulled
> > > from the site of the origin author or company when installing.
> > > Examples for this case are the <tt>broadcom-sta-*</tt> packages, a
> > > driver for Broadcom wireless adapters.
> > > Moreover to this, the source code might not be available at all
> > > and only a binary "blob" is distributed by the origin company.
> > > A notable example for this is the Adobe Flash plugin in the
> > > <tt>flashplugin-nonfree</tt> package.
> > >
> > >
> > > Comments?
> >
> > But was the mention of nvidia dropped deliberately or accidentally?
> > Is nvidia not one of these binary blob packages? Or was it just a
> > matter of the paragraph being long enough already?
>
> I would vote for only mentioning some cases as examples, without trying
> to be complete. That list would become too extensive IMHO. And always
> lacking some.
> And: as examples I thought the above cases fit better: only few packages
> (respective one), while for nvidia there a masses of packages, and
> I was unable to overlook which ones are of the above category and which
> ones are probably not.
OK. makes sense.
-- hendrik
Reply to: