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

Re: non-free removal GR and our position to it ...



Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
 
>> Why would I? 
>
> Yeah, you see that is the whole problem. This whole plan to remove
> non-free is highly dependent of the non-free package maintainer finding
> the time for putting up this non-free parallel infrastructure. Time we
> could be spending on more usefull things.

non-free maintainers could also spend their time on packaging free
software instead of non-free software :-)

> Also, it is a bit hypocrit to find it ok to have non-free back then when
> you needed netscape and acroread, but today that you don't need them
> anymore, you want to remove non-free without regard for the other people
> whose non-free need are not yet eliminated by equivalent free software.

I can bet that there are less and less people using non-free. Anyway, if I
needed a non-free software, I wouldn't mind grabbing a package from
another location than a debian.org machine. Really I don't see
any annoyance.

> And i cast a doubt on the quality of any such third party
> infrastructure.

What quality? The only missing part would be the BTS, which can be
easily installed elsewhere. The other parts of the infrastructure
are never used for non-free packages: as I said non-free packages
are _not_ autobuilt, so basicaly non-free in debian is a package
repository.

-- 
Jérôme Marant

http://marant.org



Reply to: