From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-October/019125.html | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 93 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-October/019125.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-October/019125.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-October/019125.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-October/019125.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b2c951da9 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-October/019125.html @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue

+ Wolfgang Bornath + molch.b at googlemail.com +
+ Tue Oct 2 14:58:03 CEST 2012 +

+
+ +
2012/10/2 James Kerr <jim at jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk>:
+> On 02/10/2012 12:26, Frank Griffin wrote:
+>
+>> At least for my part, I always viewed tainted as being the equivalent of
+>> PLF,
+>
+>
+> PLF had both free and non-free repo's.
+>
+> If you include both free and non-free in tainted, which is probably the
+> "least bad" solution, then there needs to be a way for FOSS enthusiasts (who
+> choose to do so) to avoid the non-free packages - perhaps a statement in the
+> package description would suffice.
+
+Well, are you saying that tainted includes free packages although they
+are subject to a patent? 'cause that's the only reason I could think
+of a FOSS enthousiast would like them to be separated from the
+non-free packages in "tainted". Or the other way 'round.
+IMHO a package is "not free" anyway as soon as it qualifies for
+"tainted" - whatever reason.
+
+That's why I call the distinction "beaurocratic" and the discussion "academic"
+
+-- 
+wobo
+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1