Re: Screw non-free.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 02:11:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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 Out of date in non-free by arch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.
That's an issue that needs to be resolved.
My point was that these packages are not out of date because of bugs in
the source packages.
> > 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?
For me the quality of a package lies mostly in the source package.
E.g. I wouldn't consider an XFree86 package to be of low quality if it
was out of date beacuse there was no working i386 autobuilder for some
> > 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?
That's a question ajt has to answer.
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed