> > 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.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:52:36AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Yes. > > Now, assume that non-free is not empty, but all the packages in it are > orphaned and broken. > > <insert slippery slope stuff here> > > It becomes a problem of "Where do you draw the line?" I would not draw a line which gets rid of non-free as it currently exists. > I posit that the enfranchised developers are quite capable of making > that decision on their own, and that there is reason to be asking the > question now. Hence, we vote on it. I submit you're not interested in solving any real problem here, and thus the "it" you would have us vote on would not resolve anything. -- Raul
