| 1 |
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 08:01:24PM +0200, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:50:49 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Maybe they should be marked RESTRICT="nomirror" |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> But they would still be dependencies in that case. Maybe a "non-free" |
| 8 |
> USE flag could be useful for such situations. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Ugh, this was one of the reasons I moved away from debian. Too much |
| 11 |
time spent on political issues and trying to be political correct and |
| 12 |
'pure'. I like the gentoo way of giving me the programs I need here |
| 13 |
and now. With debian there was always a bunch of unoffical dpkg sites |
| 14 |
which had to reside in sources.list to get some files which were |
| 15 |
deemed 'unappropiate' for the offical Debian. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Moving down the path of free/non-free will soon make you end up on the |
| 18 |
road of insanity. Who's to decide what's non-free and not? Perhaps an |
| 19 |
easy way to dump the LICENSE field in the ebuild you're about to |
| 20 |
install, but adding a USE flag for it seems to overdo a non-issue I |
| 21 |
think. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
//H |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
To segfault is human; to bluescreen moronic. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives