On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > > I guess it's pretty clear what needs to be done in case Andrew's > > > proposal passes, no? We've got the nonfree.org domain and we've got ten > > > years of experience with hosting Debian packages.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:30:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > I'm guessing you're thinking: fork Debian, to support non-free. On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:46:43PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > Forking Debian would imply that non-free was a part of it, which I do > not believe in. But you may call it however you like. I think it's > better to refer to it as 'migrating a part of our archive to an external > source, for the sake of the user's convenience'. That's not the issue -- the issue is support. > > > Hardware/network resources might indeed be a problem. I don't think we > > > can assume that any hardware donors had foo.nonfree.org in mind when > > > they offered their machines/connectivity. Does anybody have an idea on > > > this? > > > > I'm pretty sure that if we're forking Debian [and that's a pretty big > > if -- personally, I think it's also a bad idea] > > If Andrew's proposal passes, I see only two major possibilities: i) > non-free ceases to exist and ii) non-free is maintained outside of > Debian. Sure -- and I think Andrew's proposal is a bad idea, too. Which is why I've been working on an alternative. > > that we would need to use independent machine resources for the fork. > > non-free is so tiny that whoever maintains it would only need one > machine, preferably with quite some bandwidth though (I don't know how > easy it would be to get mirrors for that) The issue is support. Uptime, package integration, bugs and fixes, etc. -- Raul
