Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You aim for it to no longer be supported on officialy visible debian > ressource, the fact that this will probably be the same DD volunteer > time going in maintaining the supposed non-free.org infrastructure, make > this a fiction, and a non-efficient one in the long run.
I don't make any claims on the time of Debian developers. They can spend that time or not. Many Debian developers already maintain separate apt-get repositories. The BTS is a help, but not the only way to manage bug reports. In my opinion, non-free software is not part of Debian. Time spent maintaining it is *already* time taken away from Debian. > I do believe that the presence of a recognized and legimitized > non-free.org will be counter productive to this effort, so we clearly > disagree. LEt's have this discussion again a few years from now, only > time will tell which of us was right. (Probably none or both will be > though, which is why i think removing non-free should be done on a > package by package basis). Do you believe that only the maintainer should judge the case? Would you agree to some set of standards to avoid having non-free packages which are unnecessary, but which the maintainer for whatever reason likes? Thomas
