On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 04:23:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:41:25PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> > section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free
> > section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
>
> Clause 5 also allows us to distribute contrib as well as non-free. Without
> it, clause 1 ("we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free
> software") would seem to require us to remove contrib as well as non-free.Clause 1 would have done that already, if contrib were a part of Debian. That's always previously been justified by saying that contrib is *not* a part of Debian; I see no reason why this would change. Clause 5 *requires* us to distribute contrib. That's what is being removed. > Is contrib also to be removed? Frankly, I don't care. Requiring its presence after dropping non-free is somewhat silly, but I see no reason why it should be removed. > If not, how are dependencies from contrib on non-free software to be > treated? Should the dependencies of contrib packages just be ignored > version of libc6 only available in unstable or experimental? Or should > contrib packages not depend explicitly on non-free packages at all? Or > should something else happen? Implementation details. This stuff should not be written into a GR, any more than every other change to policy. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
