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

Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue

On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 10:10:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The other seems like an outgrowth of the much
> more practical "we need to manage our resources, we're growing too big"
> issue.
> Personally, I don't think the free/non-free issue is the right place to
> hit, if we are trying to manage our ftp servers.

The entire size of non-free is smaller than queue/accepted gets on
some days. I don't believe there's any significant efforts spent on
supporting non-free software at the moment that isn't also necessary
for supporting main.
> What I think should be the case for mirror operators:  they should
> be able to drop non-free, contrib (and even extra) as they see fit.

They certainly can -- by not mirroring the pool/non-free directory, and the
appropriate Packages files. AFAIK this isn't done much, because it doesn't
buy anything: non-free is trivial compared to main in all the appropriate

> It would make a lot of sense to have a mix of numerous fast mirrors which
> only distribute debian's core packages, with a few larger/slower mirrors
> which distribute a wider variety of packages.  

Which is to say, while that's true, differentiating non-free isn't helpful
towards that goal.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

               Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Attachment: pgp94slNYGBT5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: