On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:52:36AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:46:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:35:45AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > You cannot get rid of non-free without a vote. All that you can do is > > > to empty it. Even if it were empty, it must remain until a vote > > > occurs. > > > > That's not currently a relevant issue. > > > > That said: a vote to get rid of non-free when non-free is empty would > > have different significance than a vote to get rid of non-free when > > non-free contains packages some people rely on. > > Yes. > > Now, assume that non-free is not empty, but all the packages in it are > orphaned and broken.
if they're all orphaned and broken, then delete them from the archive. no-one will complain....or if they do, the correct response is "then get off your arse and upload a fixed version if you care so much about it" > <insert slippery slope stuff here> <demolish stupid straw-man here> > It becomes a problem of "Where do you draw the line?" only if you're stupid and/or live in lawyer-land rather than the real world. craig PS: how about we posit another hypothetical scenario wherein all packages are actually fish (which, you have to admit, is much more likely than your scenario). what happens when someone wants to package a shark? or a dolphin? now that's going to be a real ethical puzzler, especially for the vegan or vegetarian developers. and what does that mean for the package that really wants to be an asparagus? it's just too much to contemplate. if you're wondering why this surrealist crap is here, well...that should be obvious. when you descend to such absurd scenarios in your argument, you shouldn't be surprised when someone calls you on it.
