> 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?
>
Sure, that's the best. But a lot of Debian maintainers don't really
like "non-free" to begin with, and don't like to give non-free
the same prefferential treatment the main system gets.
I'm sure there one day will be a stable/non-free and unstable/non-free,
but I'm not going to be asking for it.
--
joost witteveen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Use Debian/GNU Linux!
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
