Re: mass bug filing for unmet dependencies
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: mass bug filing for unmet dependencies
- From: Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 02:09:22 +0100 (CET)
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- 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> <20041101080131.M13081@links.magenta.com>
>> >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?
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.