In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) writes:
> People seem to think that "non-free" is more stable than "unstable".
> This is AFAIK not the case ("non-free" doesn't have the sabilising
> time "stable/buzz" has), and therefore I don't know why people start
> installing non-free packages without wanting to go into
> "unstable". But anyway. If you want to install non-free/gs-4.0x,
> you'll have to install unstable/*/libpaper. Sorry.
I ran into the same problem as the original poster. I installed
Debian off a CD, and then went to non-free at ftp.debian.org to get
goodies which couldn't be included on the CD due to licensing
restrictions. I didn't want anything from unstable, but I ended up
having to dive in there for libpaper.
There's nothing inherently unstable about non-free software, so I
think "non-free" and "unstable" should be orthogonal concepts. How
about a "non-free/stable" in which nothing depends on anything outside
of "stable", and a "non-free/unstable", in which anything goes?
> joost witteveen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--glenn
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
