I am really, really unhappy about the removal of djvudigital. I am aware of the problems with gsdjvu, but there is no question of a binary source blob here---it should be possible to write a package that downloads the gsdjvu source and installs it. I rely heavily on djvudigital, and the idea that useful software is removed because a Debian developer is unhappy about the license is abhorrent to me. You are bearing the brunt of the complaint, but I am increasingly inclined to switch from Debian to Ubuntu. Having people leave Debian in droves seems to be the only possible way of convincing the Debian developers that the path Debian is following is not serving users.
As a longtime supporter of Debian (I had Ian in an OS class in 1996) I would be very sad to make such a move, but Debian has now reached a point where it is costing me more time and energy than it is saving me. If I did not have a large existing investment in Debian that would take time and effort to migrate, I would switch to Ubuntu *today*. I really don't understand the Debian process or the thinking of the Debian leadership. In the past, the perceived problem with djvudigital would have been solved by migrating it (and perhaps the entire package that contains it) to contrib or non-free. To just remove it seems harsh, and I can't understand what end it serves. My I conclude with a plea that a package containing djvudigital be placed in contrib or in non-free? Norman P.S. I have written to AT&T twice about the licensing problem, and I have also tried to use three different personal contacts inside AT&T to see if the licensing issue can be resolved at that end. All of these efforts have fizzled. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
