On Wed, 5 May 1999, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 03:39:02AM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote: > > Yes, I'm sorry to have missed that. Both of you are obviously right. > > > > Now, I ask the same question again but with a little difference: Since > > Policy defines which packages can go into 'main' and which can't, can > > somebody please point out which part of Policy these programs fail? I have > > read the requirements for packages that want to go into main. I don't see > > what's wrong with free packages that talk proprietary protocols for which > > is no free 'other end' available, as far as Policy is concerned. > > I can't point to you such a place because it doesn't exist. This "new > distinction" was distinctly proposed as a NEW policy, perhaps (very > arguably, as we've seen) logically derived from the old, but not as > existing policy. > > N.B., it wasn't even formally proposed, just brought up for discussion.
IIRC, the whole discussion started after an archive maintainer rejected a new package that was supposed to go into main, for the reason that _he_ thinks it is useful only if it talks a proprietary network protocol for which there is no free server available. If this reason isn't even mentioned in Debian Policy, then what gives him the right to do so? If a program can be compiled and executed on a Debian system on which nothing else but packages from 'main' have been installed, it should go into 'main'. That's what Debian is all about. Remco -- rd1936: 11:45pm up 5 days, 7:40, 6 users, load average: 1.47, 1.58, 1.52
