On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:52:36AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > That said: a vote to get rid of non-free when non-free is empty would > > have different significance than a vote to get rid of non-free when > > non-free contains packages some people rely on. > Now, assume that non-free is not empty, but all the packages in it are > orphaned and broken.
All the software that's in non-free (or contrib, or main) that's orphaned and broken should be removed post-haste. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature