On Thu June 8 2006 10:07, it was written: > Users who accept that they might need non-free software to use things have > contrib (and non-free) in their sources.list. Users who don't want it don't. > If this script is in contrib, it is very visible for people who have contrib > in sources.list (a Suggests: would be appropriate), while people who don't > want to be bothered with non-free things don't see it. This is exactly the > kind of thing contrib is for. <...> > > Well contrib serves an ideological purpose that I share: not cluttering the > > package database of people who are not interested in installing non-free > > software (because they will have to install something non-free to make use > > of contrib).
Nope. Contrib serves a technical purpose and a users feelings about "non free" stuff has nothing to do with whether or not they should include contrib and non-free in their sources.list. That the variety of software available for GNU/Linux has expanded to the point where most users can function effectively sans non-free, and consequently treat stuff which is not free as a philosophical luxury, doesn't change what contrib and non-free are about. Ideologically: "We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian." [/usr/share/doc/debian/social-contract.txt] Technically: Debian can not work with some source code in the manner it needs to--contrib and non-free are the mechanisms Debian uses to make such code available in spite of those handicaps. Note: the ideology at play here is not one of separation, but rather one of inclusion. - Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
