On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:05:18PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 05:54:02PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > > > And the non-free appearing in the path is not a dead give away? > > > > > > > > > > that's those debs are not an part of the official distribution? No, it's > > > not. > > > > Would making them available as > > ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/not-officially-part-of-debian--non-free/ > that's preferrable to the seperate server??
No. They're equally onerous. > > make everyone happy then? (With a nice symlink from stable/non-free for > > the convenience of our users, of course. :) If that's not enough, how is > The symlink, of course, ruins the issue. And also keeps some level of compatability without wasting a boatload of disk space. (Do we really have the resources to maintain two completely seperate copies of non-free for a while, or is the plan to spring this on people with no transition period?) > > non-free.debian.org enough? Shouldn't it be non-free.sorta-debian.org? > sorta-debian would require another internic registration. It might be > better to leave them out. Is this renaming thing really important or is it a gesture? If it's important, I don't see that the inconvenience of registering a new name is relevant. If it's a gesture, then my silly path idea will have just as much impact with far less work. > > How does the casual browser know that something on a particular server > > that *is* in the debian.org domain isn't really part of debian? Again, > > who's this targeted at--casual users or hard-liners who already know the > > difference? > I believe casual users and newbies and the sensitive. But you didn't answer the implied question of how casual users/newbies know that somename.debian.org is more "official" than othername.debian.org. IMHO, those with enough exposure to debian to understand our position on officialness *already understand free/non-free*. Mike Stone
pgpa11j5Mxrvu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
