On 10/30/06, michel memeteau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If not, wouldn't it be the moment to remove this problematic package ? > > Why is it so problematic ? because it's binary and proprietary ? like many > others ... > Yes, all PLF non-free packages are problematic. The more there is, the more free is the world. _______________________________________________ PLF-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo/plf-discuss
- [Plf-discuss] are win32 codecs still useful ? Michael Scherer
- Re: [Plf-discuss] are win32 codecs still useful ? Anssi Hannula
- Re: [Plf-discuss] are win32 codecs still useful ... michel memeteau
- Re: [Plf-discuss] are win32 codecs still use... Vincent Panel
- Re: [Plf-discuss] are win32 codecs still... Vincent Panel
- Re: [Plf-discuss] are win32 codecs still useful ? Rob
- Re: [Plf-discuss] are win32 codecs still useful ... Michael Scherer
- Re: [Plf-discuss] are win32 codecs still useful ... Raphaël Gertz
- Re: [Plf-discuss] are win32 codecs still use... Michael Scherer
- Re: [Plf-discuss] are win32 codecs still use... Rob
- Re: [Plf-discuss] are win32 codecs still use... Guillaume Rousse
