On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 +0000 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > >>Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ? > >>Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which > >>"unnecessarly in non-free" constitutes a bug. We have no policy, of > >>any kind, which says that only necessary things should be in > >>non-free. > >I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free > >should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you > >refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy. > > It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or > ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free > with apparent replacements in main.
And, how should i know ? > >Make sure that the package is indeed fully replaced though. > > Here we go again. mpg123 can resample output, while mpg321 supporters > say another piece of free software can be used for that and it's > better to do one thing well. Certain other non-free maintainers defend > their package's user interface or IMO pointless extra options. If > that's OK, then filing "replaceable by" bugs against non-free seems > not to achieve anything. Yeah, well, i think this vote and discussion has changed the minds on this issue, but my idea was to have an prolonged evaluation of each package in non-free, and a redo this evaluation regularly. This evaluation would include the reason for it not yet havingfull replacements, and suggestions on how to change it. Friendly, Svne Luther