On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:25:08PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > > It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the > > > whole project, if you take a bit wider look at it. > > > > Sure. If you are concerned by other packages that don't run on an arch > > you care about, your are free to provide the work needed to fix it. > > No thanks, I don't feel like fixing non-free.
So, clearly you don't care about those package, so, what is the problem (mmm, it was the package you care about, not the arch, sorry for the non-clarity of my sentence). > > But using this as an example to remove _every_ package from non-free, > > and the whole of non-free is stupid. > > It's just one argument. Of course, removing non-free just because of > that is stupid, but we're trying to bring up arguments for discussion, > remember? Now, we are argumenting for the sake of it. Let's actually propose a GR, and discuss it during the vote-discussion period. > > What about the packages who are arch: all and those who are well > > maintained ? You may not be the one using those, but others certainly > > do, and the maintainer certainly cares about their package enough to > > have them well maintained. > > We all hope they will continue to maintain them well, on nonfree.org. And will you provide the infrastructure for it ? Friendly, Sven Luther
