Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:02:22PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #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
Notice that non-free was mostly not included on the CD distribution