Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes. I think main should remain self contained. This is the > same reason we have a contrib section -- packages in contrib can > not be built with the software contained in main.
s/can not be built/can not be built and installed/ It's necessary, but not sufficient, for the package to build from ‘main’: one of the example use cases for ‘contrib’ is “wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free programs”, and ‘contrib’ is a haven for packages that, on *installation*, download and install non-free software. Even if such a package can itself be built from ‘main’, it's still not a candidate for inclusion in ‘main’. > I do not see why we should change this invariant to pander > to software patents. Agreed, with the caveat of “software patents that are known to be actively enforced”, to forestall the obvious argument about *every* non-trivial program likely violating *some* patent. -- \ “Two rules to success in life: 1. Don't tell people everything | `\ you know.” —Sassan Tat | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
