I don't know why some of you are making all that noise... if I have understood correctly, non-free will be made available after sarge release (which is supposed to happen within 3 or 4 weeks)... so... why bother the developers instead of thaking them for all the work they've already made?
Regards, Rafael Rodríguez Goswin von Brederlow dijo: > Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >>> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote: >>> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it. >>> > >>> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in >>> the >>> > other arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without >>> that >>> > explanation I am forced to agree with Ed - the problem are >>> political... >>> > Which is the bane of debian. >>> >>> We are *NOT* Debian >> >> >> We ARE Debian for Heaven's sake! This move to another server is just >> TEMPORARY! We WILL be Debian as soon as sarge gets out and development >> on > ^^^^ > > You said it yourself. > >> etch picks up. Who in the world is going to get upset when they know we >> will >> soon be part of official Debian, and they've already given permission >> for >> Debian to distribute their stuff! Get real people! >> >> How many non-free packages have been cleared? Why haven't you at least >> set up >> non-free and moved the packages known to be ok into it? I know for sure >> that >> the rogue-like games in non-free are perfectly fine and can brought >> on-line >> now, since they and a lot of other stuff is in non-free just because >> they are >> "old" pre-GPL software with "don't sell for money" restrictions which >> make >> them fail the DFSG test on distribution, but are otherwise fully >> open-source >> (and who's earlier authors can no longer be found to ask them if they'd >> agree >> to a change to the GPL or some other Free license). >> >> In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go >> in >> right now because they don't require anyone's permission to distribute >> since >> they're in non-free because of the dispute between Debian and FSF over >> documentation. > > Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise? > > Seriously, get some patience and don't inflame the situation > please. Things like "most of that" is of zero help in deciding what > can go in and what not. We know most of it can, the question is what > packages are those in particular. We can't just add all of non-free > and say it is mostly OK. > >>> thats all you need to get! >> >> >> Hogwash. This sounds like an extremely defensive response. How many >> packages >> have been cleared for non-free? Why haven't you just put up a non-free >> section with the stuff thats been cleared? Why has it been more than a >> week, >> with no non-free section at all, no indication of how the "vetting" >> process >> is going, and with you telling us above that we don't need to know >> anything >> more? Now do you understand why I'm just a little bit skeptical? > > We had (an empty) non-free right after the dns switch so apt-get > wouldn't fail. And we told you exactly what the status is: "Someone > has to do the work". > >> Just establish the non-free section and move everything over. If anyone >> complains then just drop the package they're complaining about. Of >> course, >> NO ONE is going to complain since they know we will "become" Debian soon >> anyway (and for all intents we ARE Debian - just not on their server), >> and >> they've already given Debian permission to distribute. For the rest of >> non-free, permission to distribute is not an issue, and not the reason >> they're in non-free to begin with. > > The pine author would for one thing. > >> Re-evaluating non-free is just silly when we're going to "officially" >> become >> Debian again in a few months, certainly less than a year, anyway >> (assuming >> Debian gets Sarge out soon). Heck, Debian doesn't even advertise us, >> we're >> the bastard child they don't want to talk about, because when they do it >> reignites the argument about which architectures to "officially" >> support, and >> why... and why not. NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! > > It will be at least 18 month going by the release plans till etch will > be stable and sarge amd64 can be dropped. Considering the track record > of past timelines 2-3 years is probably more accurate. That is a long > time for someone to start suing. > > In one point you are right though: > > NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! None of us anyway. With > the exception of nvidia* package it seems. That is the only package > that users missed so far. Please excuse us for not giving it higher > priority than fixing RC bugs or otherwise vital archive maintainance. > > MfG > Goswin > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]