On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:15:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be > > > of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on > > > i386. This is due in part to a lack of autobuilders for non-free. > > > > What has that to do. If the package is only built on i386, or on a > > reduced set of arches, this doesn't imply lower quality, just that it > > has not been ported. And the fact that some arches don't really need it > > is a good thing for its eventual removal. > > If a package has source code avaiable, the maintainer might feel the > urge to port it to as many arches as possible. Then, when he wants > update the package, he'd have to recompile on all those arches again in > order to get it into testing (AIUI). This might or might not be possible > all the time, or he might not care about all of the arches anymore. The > non-i386 might eventually get out of sync and rot. This would be > especially the case if non-free Build-Depends are required (or > Build-Depends which are not even avaiable in non-free), as I guess he > couldn't use a Debian box for building the package then. (Dunno how far > the cooperation of DSA goes in this regard) > > Of course, things could just go well, that depends on the maintainers > motivation (and possibly others who'd recompile for him).
BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously). So this is not really a concern. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
