Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or
> ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free
> with apparent replacements in main.
And, how should i know ?
> >Make sure that the package is indeed fully replaced though.
>
> Here we go again. mpg123 can resample output, while mpg321 supporters
> say another piece of free software can be used for that and it's
> better to do one thing well. Certain other non-free maintainers defend
> their package's user interface or IMO pointless extra options. If
> that's OK, then filing "replaceable by" bugs against non-free seems
> not to achieve anything.
Yeah, well, i think this vote and discussion has changed the minds on
this issue, but my idea was to have an prolonged evaluation of each
package in non-free, and a redo this evaluation regularly.
This evaluation would include the reason for it not yet havingfull
replacements, and suggestions on how to change it.
Friendly,
Svne Luther
Reply to: