On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:36:35AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > No, my position is that it'd make sense to remove non-free when there
> > are only a handful of packages to be kept there, because it's likely
> > none of them would be particularly interesting and the effort of keeping
> > non-free in the archive wouldn't be justified. [foo]
> Ok. How many packages? Can you give us a test that we can
> objectively apply to detect this situation?
Read the message you're replying to, where I answered that exact question:
] > Perhaps I've misunderstood. Is there some minimal number of packages
] > such that if we have only that small number, we can disregard them and
] > close down non-free, in your opinion?
] No, not particularly. The cutoff is when the administrative burden of
] worrying about non-free becomes more than it's worth to its users; I'd
] suspect that'll come when there's but a handful of packages there, but it
] might come sooner (if there are a couple of dozen packages that are all
] pretty pointless), or it might come later (if we have one or two packages
] that are really important to some users that are really hard to replace).
Of course, I suppose it's already evident that you're unable or unwilling
to deal with anything slightly complicated on this issue.
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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature