On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:23:09 -0400, Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just my 2 cents. I completely agree with Steve. If the only
> freeness of an installer is being able to use it as a staring point
> to make another installer, then that's pretty weak. It's sole
> purpose is to install something that isn't even free enough for
> `non-free', so why should it be listed in the freer than non-free
> contrib?
> Moving such packages to non-free would be more representative of
> their real state of freeness.
While I reject the argument hat installer packages ought to
move to non-free since they cause non-free software to appear on the
system (there are non-installer packages that also do that if they
depend on non-0free packages), I do find this line of reasoning
persuasive.
manoj
--
Depart in pieces, i.e., split.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
