On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:00:15PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > That's not currently a relevant issue. > > > > > > That said: a vote to get rid of non-free when non-free is empty would > > > have different significance than a vote to get rid of non-free when > > > non-free contains packages some people rely on. > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:52:36AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Yes. > > > > Now, assume that non-free is not empty, but all the packages in it are > > orphaned and broken. > > > > <insert slippery slope stuff here> > > > > It becomes a problem of "Where do you draw the line?" > > I would not draw a line which gets rid of non-free as it currently exists. I know that not everybody agrees with you. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature