On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 07:47:40PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > For instance, your proposal is too specific because it does not provide > > any guidance for what to do with non-us, the web pages, bug system, user > > web pages or APT.
> Good point but (in the rest) I think you carried it to far.. to an extreme. Deliberately so, but still. Sometimes painting a horror picture can focus attention - As I said at the bottom, I feared a rehash of the merits of names debate. > > Incidently, as an aside.. to anyone who thinks that this would just be a > > simple creation of a new host.. No, it isn't. In discussions it's pretty > > much come out that it would be run by a different ftpmaster team, it would > > have it's own upload arranagment and it's own mirror arranagement, we'd > > need to find sponsorship and hardware to run it, etc. APT would no longer > > list non-free components and would make no mention that they even > > existed, etc. > I don't see that as part of the proposal.. any of it. Where would apt not > have a comment section in the sources.list that said, for other packages... Indeed, it isn't, all those things fall under the category of 'implementation details'. Ask the people involved, as I did, for their feelings on the subject and that is a very real set of subsequent events. You are asking why, I am saying that is how the people who are going to do it have considered doing it, the proposal doesn't cover it so the various teams in charge make the choices. > Why can the web site not say, "information on other packages not part of > Debian" and point to non-free.d.o. Why does there have to be a seperate For that you'll have to ask RMS - he suggested that idea, I have no idea if anyone intends to pick it up, but voting in a proposal like this is a strong starting point for such things. Jason
