> On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 11:10:56AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 07:20:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > I don't think that's any worse than having a GPL-compatible package > > > reference a non-GPL-compatible package, if we were to have a gpl-only > > > distribution. > > Huh? > > If we were building an independent (not debian) distribution > > then I can see your point.
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 03:47:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Suppose we were to have four distributions, instead of three: non-free, > contrib, main and gpl-only. gpl-only being that subset of main which is > gpl-compatible. If we create a gpl-compatible, it will be for developers more than end users. Which means that for gpl-compatible the source packages are much more interesting than the binary .deb files. So I don't see that this should be an issue there. Once again: why are we talking about making our package meta-data specification more complicated to support a small subset of non-free packages? -- Raul
