On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 09:35:11AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 02:22:06PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > > I agree with all your points. I think we should move forward moving > > > those docs to non-free. It'll mean a few packages from non-free on my > > > systems, but if that's what RMS wants it's not a huge deal for me as > > > long as they are still available. > > > > Let's not forget that there are at least four cases where manuals can > > stay in main if we're willing to dust off older versions of them (gawk, > > gdb, make, and texinfo). > > That decision would be up to the maintainer, wouldn't it? Not entirely. If the maintainers of these packages choose not to fool with this "dusting off", other developers can do so. That's what I mean by "we". > I'd suggest that the old version go in main, and that the new version go > in non-free. Well, yeah, that's kind of what I was saying, and is a direct consequence of the licensing. > The non-free more uptodate one could be setup to supersede the older > free one once installed (if the content is at all different, otherwise > don't bother with it). They could Conflict, or the non-free package could use dpkg-divert. The technology used isn't really important at this point. -- G. Branden Robinson | I've made up my mind. Don't try to Debian GNU/Linux | confuse me with the facts. branden@debian.org | -- Indiana Senator Earl Landgrebe http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpBIOiyPZJZf.pgp
Description: PGP signature