Re: mass bug filing for unmet dependencies
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: mass bug filing for unmet dependencies
- From: Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 08:01:31 -0500
- Message-id: <20041101080131.M13081@links.magenta.com>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>; from md@Linux.IT on Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM +0100
- References: <20041028200217.H13081@links.magenta.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20041028214201.J13081@links.magenta.com> <email@example.com> <20041028222718.N13081@links.magenta.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20041029094012.Q13081@links.magenta.com> <email@example.com> <20041029125318.U13081@links.magenta.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >You're asking why I think "can be flashed, but works just fine without
> >being flashed" is different from "won't work without being loaded"?
> >Fundamentally, the latter case forces us to not ignore it. The equipment
> >won't work if we ignore the issue.
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> So you say that non-free software is OK with you as long as you can
> pretend it's not there? Which part of the policy or SC justifies this
So you say that I was talking about pretending? Which part of what I
wrote justifies this interpretation?