Re: in or out of the distribution (Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free))
Hi.
In <[🔎] Pine.A41.3.95.1000613020035.69022A-100000@fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>,
at "Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:32:16 -0600 (MDT)",
Bruce Sass <bsass@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> writes:
> ftp.debian.org/pub/debian
> ftp.debian.org/pub/debian-support
>
> > Having it outside of the debian/ hierarchy just causes problems for
> > mirrors.
>
> There would be one more `site' to mirror... or am I missing something.
Currently, we have already 'non-US' hierarchy and apt can handle this
pretty well, I think.
> > deb http://foo.debian.org/debian woody main add-on/contrib add-on/non-free
> > vs, ummm,
> > deb http://foo.debian.org/debian woody main
> > deb http://foo.debian.org/debian/not-dists/woody contrib/ non-free/
>
> The first is cleaner, the second provides better separation;
> I guess it is a matter of which is more important to Debian.
My sources.list has commented out[1] line which reads:
# deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian frozen main contrib non-free
# deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US frozen/non-US main contrib non-free
Modification these lines into
# deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian woody main
# deb http://http.us.not.debian.org/extra-debian woody contrib non-free (and others...)
# deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US woody/non-US main
# deb http://non-us.not.debian.org/extra-debian-non-US woody/non-US contrib non-free
may "provide much separation", I think.
Sure, this will make extra work for our admin team, and I'm not
so eager for this myself. This is just a feasibility study.
Regards.
--
Taketoshi Sano: <sano@debian.org>,<sano@debian.or.jp>,<kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp>
Reply to: