On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:07:08PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:54:13PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:50:40PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > The bug being more than 60 days old, does it mean that we have to move > > > glibc to non-free (and with it, half of the archive to contrib)? It > > > would be faster to move everything to non-free. > > > > Neither the SC nor my proposed text enforce moving stuff to contrib, > > It does, packages in main cannot (Build-)?Depend upon non-free, hence > must be moved to contrib. > > If you move linux to non-free (ignoring the blatant silliness of such an > action), every package that needs linux-source would move to contrib. > Say kernel-package, m-a, all the kernel-patches, iptables, ... > everything. And ... even the glibc since it uses linux-libc-dev to > build, so in turn 90% of Debian shall go to contrib.
Don't you find it a bit contradictory that you're arguing that we should "bend SC #1" and at the same time argue that if we don't, we have to interpret SC #5 in such an overzealous way that compels us to do things that are not even in the text? -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
