On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > 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. > > It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the > whole project, if you take a bit wider look at it.
Sure. If you are concerned by other packages that don't run on an arch you care about, your are free to provide the work needed to fix it. what wider look is there to have at it. If the packages is poorly maintained, let's remove it, if it is maintained on only a small number of arches, let's build it only on those arches, until someone with interest for other arches shows enough interest to fix issues involved with other arches. But using this as an example to remove _every_ package from non-free, and the whole of non-free is stupid. What about the packages who are arch: all and those who are well maintained ? You may not be the one using those, but others certainly do, and the maintainer certainly cares about their package enough to have them well maintained. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
