On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 12:45:50PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 05:47:25PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: > > > To our users who were used to quality packages from accountable > > > maintainers even if the software wasn't 100% DFSG-compliant: bummer, man. > > > > Out of date in non-free by arch > > ------------------------------- > > alpha 72 > > arm 78 > > hppa 72 > > i386 6 > > ia64 67 > > m68k 59 > > mips 101 > > mipsel 103 > > powerpc 53 > > s390 81 > > sparc 80 > > > > Many packages in non-free haven't had consistent versions across all > > architectures in over two years. > > That's not a fault of the maintainers The users don't care whose fault it is. > and doesn't say anything about the quality of the packages. That is only true if updates to package in non-free seldom or never feature bugfixes. Do you know that to be the case? > The buildds currently ignore non-free packages. How do you propose to rectify or work around that? Will passing Anthony Towns's proposed amendment automatically rectify it? If not, shouldn't we have a plan in place for concretizing our reaffirmed support for non-free? -- G. Branden Robinson | The last time the Republican Party Debian GNU/Linux | was on the right side of a social branden@debian.org | issue, Abe Lincoln was president. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Kirk Tofte
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature