> > What is annoying is that by producing this, who would benefit ?
> >
> > Many scripts are hardcoded with the location of non-free etc.
>
> Why? I submit that any script that has that is buggy. They should be using
> apt anyway.
I suspect they will be generating apt configuration files,
or
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 10:28:34AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> What is annoying is that by producing this, who would benefit ?
>
> Many scripts are hardcoded with the location of non-free etc.
Why? I submit that any script that has that is buggy. They should be using
apt anyway.
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 10:15:00AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-11-24 at 04:10, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Actually John, you and Branden seem to be about the only people posting in
> > support of the GR. No doubt there are others who agree, but what makes
> > you think there are so ma
On Sun, 2002-11-24 at 04:10, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 08:34:19AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 01:25:23AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > would be a positive improvement over the status quo); I wonder what
> > > Debian
> > > developers who supp
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 08:34:19AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 01:25:23AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > would be a positive improvement over the status quo); I wonder what Debian
> > developers who support non-free think of these ideas?
>
> It must feel good to total
> > * Abandon non-free entirely, but have SPI sponsor a apt-gettable server
> > (third-party.debian.org) for third-party developers to put .deb packages
> > on.
> I'd already raised this possibility before (moving non-free out of Debian
> but to some other SPI project). It doesn't have to be
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 01:25:23AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> * Abandon non-free entirely, but have SPI sponsor a apt-gettable server
> (third-party.debian.org) for third-party developers to put .deb packages on.
I'd already raised this possibility before (moving non-free out of Debian
bu
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 01:25:23AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> There's a real complaint: confused users and developers think that 'non-free'
> is part of the Debian distribution. How to solve this without slaying
> non-free? Here are some ideas, in increasing degree of drasticness.
>
> *
Branden said:
>There's always[1] going to be some new non-free thing for which there
>isn't yet a free replacement. xpdf-japanese et al. didn't exist in 1997
So you admit that the original motivation for non-free is *still valid*!
>when we adopted the Social Contract, as far as I know. So I don
9 matches
Mail list logo
