[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: mass bug filing for unmet dependencies

moth@debian.org wrote:

>> >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
>> theory?
>So you say that I was talking about pretending?  Which part of what I
>wrote justifies this interpretation?
You wrote "the latter case forces us to not ignore [non-free software
running on a system]". To me, this implies that in the other cases you
deliberately choose to ignore it.


Reply to: