Re: additional virtual packages for kde
On Wed, Nov 26, 1997 at 07:05:20PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Luis Francisco Gonzalez wrote:
> > It's in the interest of our users and of not being called a "broken"
> > distribution.
>
> I don't think anyone would call our distribution "broken" if he/she
> removes some of our packages, replaces them with someone else ones, and
> fails.
Microsoft Windows NT warns you when you install non-Microsoft
drivers that Microsoft it not responsible for any problems that
occur. Perhaps we should do this with non-debian packages too?
I'm not entirely unserious here. I agree with Christian's earlier
post; do we really need to go out of our way to support a
non-debian-maintained package?
At the risk of starting another flamewar, providing a KDE
package that installs in /opt is an obvious violation of debian
policy, which I assume is why Andreas does his own. Although
Andreas encourages us not to get the KDE people off-side,
sometimes it wouldn't hurt if the KDE people would try
not to piss us off either.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt, StudIEAust hamish@debian.org, hmoffatt@mail.com
Student, computer science & computer systems engineering. 3rd year, RMIT.
http://hamish.home.ml.org/ (PGP key here) CPOM: [****** ] 60%
The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. --Bohr
Reply to: