On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:56:31AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > If OpenMotif is in the distribution, why do packages need to provide > a statically linked version? Why can't they go in contrib (DFSG) or > non-free (otherwise) with a dependency on OpenMotif, just like other > non-free library using software? Because I'm not sure there is 100% compatibility between the version of OSF/Motif that a package may be coded against, and between the version of OpenMotif that we ship. In other words, I'm not willing yet to yank the rug out from under all Motif-linked packages and tell them "make sure it works with OpenMotif instead". I might be more inclined to do so if OpenMotif were DFSG-free, but it isn't. Thus the policy proposal is designed to produce minimal disruption while addressing the "what if" scenarios that are going to crop up with OpenMotif-linked software. Truth be told, I regard the "phenomenon" of OpenMotif as a non-event, and I don't think I'm alone in that assessment. But if you have any suggestions for specific wording changes in the proposal, I'm open to them. -- G. Branden Robinson | To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to unlearn branden@debian.org | old falsehoods. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
Attachment:
pgpdTDhUuAeJG.pgp
Description: PGP signature