Here is my problem: I've always disliked section base, as being an
artificial set of packages otherwise belonging to standard sections
(utils, admin, etc.).
The current idea of `Section: base' is totally broken. I brought this topic
twice to the lists, but was unable to build consensus... =)
Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
Here is my problem: I've always disliked section base, as being an
artificial set of packages otherwise belonging to standard sections
(utils, admin, etc.).
The current idea of `Section: base' is totally broken. I brought this topic
twice to the lists, but was
Here is my problem: I've always disliked section base, as being an
artificial set of packages otherwise belonging to standard sections
(utils, admin, etc.).
The current idea of `Section: base' is totally broken. I brought this topic
twice to the lists, but was unable to build
From gnu.misc.discuss today. Anyone have some comments on this? All
the package pool stuff is well and good, but how long is it going to
take to completely overhaul the archive if we decide to go with it?
How much more does our release cycle slip in the meantime?
On Sat, 04 Dec 1999
No, it's all about free software. As far as I know, Qt still isn't
DFSG compliant.
Ha, it occurs to me that the above naive assumptions are yet another
example of the far reaching effects of the GNU/Debian FUD. I wish
GNU/Debian would have the decency to clean up their mess.
QT 2 is
5 matches
Mail list logo
