On Wed, Nov 26, 1997 at 07:05:20PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote: > On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Luis Francisco Gonzalez wrote: > > It's in the interest of our users and of not being called a "broken" > > distribution. > > I don't think anyone would call our distribution "broken" if he/she > removes some of our packages, replaces them with someone else ones, and > fails.
Microsoft Windows NT warns you when you install non-Microsoft drivers that Microsoft it not responsible for any problems that occur. Perhaps we should do this with non-debian packages too? I'm not entirely unserious here. I agree with Christian's earlier post; do we really need to go out of our way to support a non-debian-maintained package? At the risk of starting another flamewar, providing a KDE package that installs in /opt is an obvious violation of debian policy, which I assume is why Andreas does his own. Although Andreas encourages us not to get the KDE people off-side, sometimes it wouldn't hurt if the KDE people would try not to piss us off either. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, StudIEAust [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Student, computer science & computer systems engineering. 3rd year, RMIT. http://hamish.home.ml.org/ (PGP key here) CPOM: [****** ] 60% The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. --Bohr
