On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:36:35AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > No, my position is that it'd make sense to remove non-free when there > > are only a handful of packages to be kept there, because it's likely > > none of them would be particularly interesting and the effort of keeping > > non-free in the archive wouldn't be justified. [foo] > Ok. How many packages? Can you give us a test that we can > objectively apply to detect this situation?
Read the message you're replying to, where I answered that exact question: ] > Perhaps I've misunderstood. Is there some minimal number of packages ] > such that if we have only that small number, we can disregard them and ] > close down non-free, in your opinion? ] No, not particularly. The cutoff is when the administrative burden of ] worrying about non-free becomes more than it's worth to its users; I'd ] suspect that'll come when there's but a handful of packages there, but it ] might come sooner (if there are a couple of dozen packages that are all ] pretty pointless), or it might come later (if we have one or two packages ] that are really important to some users that are really hard to replace). Of course, I suppose it's already evident that you're unable or unwilling to deal with anything slightly complicated on this issue. 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 could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
