Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>
> > Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ?
>
> Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which
> "unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug. We have no policy, of
> any kind, which says that only necessary things should be in non-free.
I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free
should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you
refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy.
That's the problem with the drop non-free proponent. You are to
accroched (?) to bureaucrasy to force the issue, instead of simply going
ahead and solving the issue little by little.
Sure, it is a bug, if the packages is no more useful, and has truly been
replaced by mpg321 for all usage, then mpg123 should be removed.
Make sure that the package is indeed fully replaced though.
> On the other hand, if you want to create such a policy, I'm all for
> it. Indeed, that's *exactly* what I've been suggesting as one
> possible approach to take, should the pending GR fail.
Did i not almost propose a GR that said something such ? I am not
entirely sure that this is the correct way of doing this, but i doubt we
need a GR on this issue.
Fill a wish list bug about this issue, and let's use this case as
example on what procedures are needed, and which are not.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: