> > And here I thought I was answering a specific question. On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:19:34PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > No, you solicited examples, and then keep shooting down the ones being > offered as unsatisfactory.
I did? Ok, I just went back and read over this thread. A claim was made that "outside groups have been quite able to provide well-integrated software no harder to obtain than that from Debian's own mirror network:" I confessed ignorance, and asked for a list of these groups. And people volunteered a few examples. And I considered them in the context of that original statement. And, in general, either [a] the software was not well integrated, or [b] the outside group wrote the entirety of the software from scratch (or both, but let's just call that a logical or). > Perhaps you need to state the parameters the examples must satisfy > explicitly. Except it was somebody else's point, so it's his parameters which are significant. > > > What are non-free's essential characteristics, to your mind? > > > > Me? > > > > In my case, a project would be "comparable to non-free", if there's a > > reasonably good chance that a user could use that project's repository > > in the same fashion as they currently use non-free. > > I was unaware that apt-ftparchive was difficult to master. By "use" I meant more than "install". Yes, I did say "repository", but I meant to include the things in the repository as well. I'd apologize for my poor phrasing, but I have this sneaking suspicion you're rather pleased with the result. So, instead: enjoy. -- Raul
