Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Why would I? > > Yeah, you see that is the whole problem. This whole plan to remove > non-free is highly dependent of the non-free package maintainer finding > the time for putting up this non-free parallel infrastructure. Time we > could be spending on more usefull things.
non-free maintainers could also spend their time on packaging free software instead of non-free software :-) > Also, it is a bit hypocrit to find it ok to have non-free back then when > you needed netscape and acroread, but today that you don't need them > anymore, you want to remove non-free without regard for the other people > whose non-free need are not yet eliminated by equivalent free software. I can bet that there are less and less people using non-free. Anyway, if I needed a non-free software, I wouldn't mind grabbing a package from another location than a debian.org machine. Really I don't see any annoyance. > And i cast a doubt on the quality of any such third party > infrastructure. What quality? The only missing part would be the BTS, which can be easily installed elsewhere. The other parts of the infrastructure are never used for non-free packages: as I said non-free packages are _not_ autobuilt, so basicaly non-free in debian is a package repository. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
