Re: Why Anthony Towns is wrong
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian
> ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer
> time going in maintaining the supposed non-free.org infrastructure, make
> this a fiction, and a non-efficient one in the long run.
I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers. They can
spend that time or not. Many Debian developers already maintain
separate apt-get repositories. The BTS is a help, but not the only
way to manage bug reports.
In my opinion, non-free software is not part of Debian. Time spent
maintaining it is *already* time taken away from Debian.
> I do believe that the presence of a recognized and legimitized
> non-free.org will be counter productive to this effort, so we clearly
> disagree. LEt's have this discussion again a few years from now, only
> time will tell which of us was right. (Probably none or both will be
> though, which is why i think removing non-free should be done on a
> package by package basis).
Do you believe that only the maintainer should judge the case? Would
you agree to some set of standards to avoid having non-free packages
which are unnecessary, but which the maintainer for whatever reason
likes?
Thomas
Reply to: