Guy Maor:
> There are prominent notices in both the contrib and non-free
> directories that software contained there is not an official part of
> Debian.
Once or twice I've said that it is not discriminatory to place
a package in non-free or contrib. The quoted sentence makes me
I think I have bee
On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Right now, the contrib and non-free trees are, by definition, "unstable"
> since they aren't frozen at release time. I don't think this is very nice
> for folks who are trying to run "latest stable" bits all the time.
There are prominent notices in both
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
: Why not just have rex-non-free rex-contrib and rex, etc.
I suppose this would be ok, but my own reasonableness trigger would jitter
less if it were something more like
rex/free
rex/non-free
rex/contrib
You end up with fewer syml
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
: I don't know of a longterm solution short of
: duplicating the contrib and non-free trees into stable and unstable
: versions.
During the time when I was "master of master", I was working on a proposal for
restructuring the hierarchy... and this is the s
On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Anton Rebhan wrote:
> Repeatedly, I faced problems with a new installation and with
> upgrades coming from an out-of-date Packages file and/or of
> an incomplete set of packages.
> I have ignored missing packages when they were just recommended
> but not available. Currently, h
Package: ftp.debian.org
Version: 1.1.7
Repeatedly, I faced problems with a new installation and with
upgrades coming from an out-of-date Packages file and/or of
an incomplete set of packages.
I have ignored missing packages when they were just recommended
but not available. Currently, however, the
6 matches
Mail list logo
