On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:41:53PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:36:56PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > 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. > > Uptime and infrastructure (including archive, BTS and perhaps PTS[1])
I will believe in it once i see it. I have serious doubts, but please, go ahead, and prove me wrong. That said, i wonder if the energy spent on that could not have been better spent in something else, and if being able to be said as not containing non-free is worth it. This whole thing seems really hypocrit to me though, since the aim seems to be for debian to drop non-free, but still provide non-free under another name. Friendly, Sven Luther
