On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:40:32PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > > Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME. > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free. > > > > > > On the one hand, it's much more cohesive: instead of dozens of unrelated > > > packages you have mut. > > > > > > On the other hand, it's a development project, not a distribution of > > > stuff available from elsewhere. > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:29:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > You appear to be grasping. > > And here I thought I was answering a specific question. No, you solicited examples, and then keep shooting down the ones being offered as unsatisfactory. Perhaps you need to state the parameters the examples must satisfy explicitly. > > What are non-free's essential characteristics, to your mind? > > Me? > > In my case, a project would be "comparable to non-free", if there's a > reasonably good chance that a user could use that project's repository > in the same fashion as they currently use non-free. I was unaware that apt-ftparchive was difficult to master. -- G. Branden Robinson | If you're handsome, it's flirting. Debian GNU/Linux | If you're a troll, it's sexual branden@debian.org | harassment. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- George Carlin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature