Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
#include <hallo.h>
* Martin Schulze [Tue, Mar 09 2004, 08:24:47AM]:
> Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > > do you mean the default source.list after installation? Does the sarge
> > > > installer also not ask the user if he want to include non-free?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Then we should change it again.
>
> Yes, we should. The possibility to add 'non-free' shouldn't be mentioned
> at all. People who want to use that software, should add the line to the
Following such logics you should also remove the most of contrib.
Otherwise I see every non-installable-status problem as RC bug, though.
> apt config file on their own. It's not that difficult and it would also
> emphasise the fact that non-free is not part of Debian, but only uses some
> amount of the Debian infrastructure.
And who exactly cares about the non-free part? I cannot remember FTP
mirror people complaining about space _AND_ suggesting to remove
non-free to make some free. I cannot remember any BTS maintainer
complaining about general problems with reporting bugs in non-free
packages. I cannot remember any user (not DDs/NMs) having real issues
with seeing non-free in the Debian FTP space. So what is the real
problem with it? Please don't use the old "social-contract-tells-us..."
record - it does also state that we support our users. For example, I
wonder how removing _modem_ drivers (essential to get internet
connection) from the official / semi-offical media and putting them to a
separate _download_ location (in the Internet, hahaha) should serve our
users.
Regards,
Eduard.
--
Der Arzt hilft immer, wenn nicht dem Kranken, so seinem Beutel.
-- Römisches Sprichwort
Reply to: