Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:48:38AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:14:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> >
> > > Do you really believe having a non-free archive on the debian
> > > infrastructure is in any way different than having a separate
> > > non-free.org archive?
> >
> > Yes. How many times do I have to answer this question? Yes, it's
> > different.
>
> Ok, you say it has, but please provide some prove or at least
> argumentation of it, and the benefit it will bring, over the imagined
> benefit you believe in. And you haven't responded to the fact that this
> will make no difference to those users who think that apt-get.org is
> part of debian.
People who think that apt-get.org is part of Debian are so far off
already that it makes no difference. There will always be people with
strange views, we should optimize for the common case. And believing
that ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free is part of Debian seems to be
quite common, compared to apt-get.org or backports.org or whatever.
But really, I don't see why it's necessary to argue about all this.
> Well, i would argue that if debian devel are involved in the maintaining
> of the non-free packages and the non-free infrastructure, then it seems
> evident that even if you don't attach the debian name to it, it is still
> part of the debian project.
That's a really slipperly slope here. What if Debian Developers in
proprietary companies make non-free binary .deb packages for their
companies products, would that still be part of the Debian project? What
about other unofficial stuff, like .debs on people.debian.org, or
backports at www.backports.org? Is that 'part of the debian project'?
Where do you draw the line?
> > > And, what do you think of people who need to run 3D graphics, or need to
> > > run java? They will go to apt-get.org, which is as debian as it can be,
> > > isn't it, carrying the apt-gte name, and download the third party
> > > package. Or go to non-free and use it, or go to non-free.org and get it.
> > > In how far does this improve the freeness of debian for these users ?
> >
> > Debian is already 100% Free Software. None of that changes the
> > freeness of Debian; the proposal here has nothing to do with making
> > Debian more or less free.
>
> No, it is for making cosmetic changes so as that those who don't like
> non-free packages are able to shut their eyes over reality.
s/who don't like non-free packages/who don't like the Debian project to
be associated with non-free packages/
> all those people who think apt-get.org is part of debian will
> not see a difference. And those who do, i guess they are smart enough to
> see debian/non-free as separate from debian/main, don't you think.
I find your reasoning highly irrational. 'Who thinks that apt-get is
part of Debian will believe non-free.org is part of Debian, too. Those
who don't will also believe that debian/non-free is seperate from
debian/main'.
I don't believe this is true at all. Please show evidence that people
think apt-get.org is part of the Debian project first, before you use
this as a carte blanche.
> Yes, you have proposed making my life, as packager of a non-free
> package, which incidentally i need to do my debian work, more difficult,
> this diminishing my time i could otherwise dedicate to debian.
If you can't cope with uploading stuff to non-free.org instead to
ftp.debian.org, I can't help you. I really fail to see how this would be
so difficult at all.
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
mbanck@debian.org
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Reply to: