[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: unrar version confusion



Am 2005-05-22 14:36:50, schrieb Jeroen van Wolffelaar:

> My rationale to do this, is:
> 
> - woody shipped with a non-free unrar named 'unrar', and it worked

OK.

> - the free version is not functionally equivalent yet, of the .rar files
>   in the wild, I couldn't actually find a single one that was
>   unpackeable with the free unrar.

Me too :-)

> - So, it's too late now to have sarge ship with a free alternative,
>   because development of that one simply hasn't reached a functionally
>   (nearly-?) equivalent version. For etch, let's see, but for sarge,
>   let's just maintain the situation as it was in woody: a non-free
>   'unrar' for people not objecting to non-free who want to unrar files.

Why not ship SARGE with unrar-nonfree and provide a
virtualpackage "unrar" which point to the renamed one ?

> Once the free unrar matured enough, it can probably ultimately replace

Maybe in ETCH.

> unrar (again), but until that time, I really do believe the free unrar

SARGE $USER are using now "unrar-nonfree" and in
ETCH we can remove the virtual-package "unrar".

> Thanks,
> --Jeroen

Greetings
Michelle

-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917                  ICQ #328449886
                   50, rue de Soultz         MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/88452356    67100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)

Attachment: signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: