joost witteveen writes:
> Sure, that's the best. But a lot of Debian maintainers don't really like
> "non-free" to begin with, and don't like to give non-free the same
> prefferential treatment the main system gets.
Then get rid of it. Do it right, or not at all.
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (J
> There's nothing inherently unstable about non-free software, so I
> think "non-free" and "unstable" should be orthogonal concepts. How
> about a "non-free/stable" in which nothing depends on anything outside
> of "stable", and a "non-free/unstable", in which anything goes?
>
Sure, that's the b
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) writes:
> People seem to think that "non-free" is more stable than "unstable".
> This is AFAIK not the case ("non-free" doesn't have the sabilising
> time "stable/buzz" has), and therefore I don't know why people start
> installing
>
> Hi. When I try to install the Debian ghostscript package, dselect
> notes that it depends on another package which is not available.
It is available.
People seem to think that "non-free" is more stable than "unstable".
This is AFAIK not the case ("non-free" doesn't have the sabilising
time
4 matches
Mail list logo
