Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
> > And here I thought I was answering a specific question.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:19:34PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> No, you solicited examples, and then keep shooting down the ones being
> offered as unsatisfactory.
Ok, I just went back and read over this thread. A claim was made that
"outside groups have been quite able to provide well-integrated software
no harder to obtain than that from Debian's own mirror network:"
I confessed ignorance, and asked for a list of these groups.
And people volunteered a few examples.
And I considered them in the context of that original statement. And,
in general, either [a] the software was not well integrated, or [b] the
outside group wrote the entirety of the software from scratch (or both,
but let's just call that a logical or).
> Perhaps you need to state the parameters the examples must satisfy
Except it was somebody else's point, so it's his parameters which are
> > > 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.
By "use" I meant more than "install".
Yes, I did say "repository", but I meant to include the things in the
repository as well.
I'd apologize for my poor phrasing, but I have this sneaking suspicion
you're rather pleased with the result. So, instead: enjoy.