Another issue on this is finding the location of packages you want/need to make
your system run the way the users want their systems to run. A case in point,
Xfree86 3.3.3.1 for slink. Do we publish on the web page where to find it? Not
that I've seen. Sure, it's there, SOMEWHERE, but it's not in a central place.
What splitting off the contrib and non-free says is, "Yea, there are packages
for it, but we won't tell you where to get them. And, we won't tell you how to
add them to your sources.list to make it EASY to integrate if you WANT them. I
had suggested a week ago that what we may want to consider is that the installer
can ask for a list of which sets the user wants, main, contrib, non-free,
non-US. From this, it's easy to have the sources.list go to the correct place.
If you want to send a message about not having non-free in Debian, then make it
clear that non-free is NOT a part of the main distribution. Sure, put it on
another server, but when doing a setup, it shouldn't be like pulling teeth.
Debian is, and has been for a long time, THE best distribution for system
administrators in my opinion. This is because it's always been EASY to find the
packages we want. Will you hurt the power of Debian just to send a political
message that the developers and users already have heard, but choose to
disregard because ssh IS very useful? Politics shouldn't hurt people.
Dave Bristel
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, R. Brock Lynn wrote:
> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 04:40:45 -0500
> From: "R. Brock Lynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Thomas Schoepf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> debian-vote@lists.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org
> Resent-Date: 23 Jun 1999 09:41:23 -0000
> Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
>
> Ben Armstrong wrote:
>
> > > I thinks that's even not clear enough, because the "debian.org" part makes
> > > it somehow official again.
> > > Personally, I would prefer "unofficial.debian.org".
> >
> > I like this idea.
> >
> > > Even those who know nothing about the Debian Social Contract should know
> > > what that means.
> >
> > unofficial.debian.org depoliticizes the split somewhat. I feel this is a
> > "good thing" though not everyone would agree, I am sure. Furthermore it
> > solves the sticky problem of lumping contrib in with non-free on this
> > site. Both are unofficial, i.e. not part of "main". But both are not
> > non-free.
> >
> > I only have one problem with "unofficial". People are used to unofficial
> > (beta) releases of software being the "good stuff" ... the latest-and-
> > greatest-with-all-the-bells-and-whistles. I don't think this is the
> > message we want to send. So I'm kind of on the fence as to whether
> > "nonfree" or "unofficial" would be better because of this.
>
> Call it maybe "extra" ... I rose by any other name smells as sweet?
>
> main.debian.org and extra.debian.org ???
> or maybe other.debian.org???
>
> 'main' is 100% free stuff
>
> 'extra' or 'other' is mostly but not completely non-free!
>
> That way, yes you don't have the 'contrib'ers feeling like second class
> debianites even though their stuff IS FREE, and just depends on other non-free
> stuff to work.
>
> Wham Bam... hmmmmm
>
> --Brock
>
> --------------------- PGP key ID: FED76A3D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4 / 5 / 1999
>
> __ _ Debian GNU R. Brock Lynn (bytopian on irc
> #debian)
> / /(_)_ __ _ ___ __ http://www.debian.org/ irc.openprojects.net
> / / | | '_ \| | | \ \/ / Free Software!
> / /__| | | | | |_| |> < Remember that's "Free" as in Freedom!,
> \____/_|_| |_|\__,_/_/\_\ Not Free as in price. Debian's 'Da Bomb!
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
