Re: Questions to candidates
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:58:12AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 05:12:44PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > > 3. Do you think Debian should continue to support non-free?
> > Having said this, I don't think the current non-free removal vote is
> > being done correctly. If we decide to remove non-free, we have to
> > provide a good upgrade plan for our users. Thus, I think we should
> > *first* move non-free to something like non-free.org, [...]
> It has proven to be difficult to impossible to get people to do any
> real work towards doing things in this "obvious" way.
For reference, I have to agree with Andrew here. If no one's willing
to setup such an archive then it's not reasonable to delay the vote
until that changes. If someone were actively setting it up, it might
be sensible to delay the vote so we can see just how well (or badly)
it ends up working, but that's simply not the case.
> Group (b) does not want to do this work
> because they want non-free to be in Debian, not external to it.
For reference, I don't want to do that work because I think it's a waste
of time and effort to have a separate archive exclusively for non-free;
that no one who wants to drop non-free is willing to waste that effort
suggests to me (along with my own experience) that it's a *significant*
waste of effort, given that if it were insignificant, someone would've
already done it just to stop this complaint.
(Or was this tbm volunteering? ;)
Cheers,
aj
--
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 could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Reply to: