joost witteveen writes:
> Sure, that's the best. But a lot of Debian maintainers don't really like
> "non-free" to begin with, and don't like to give non-free the same
> prefferential treatment the main system gets.
Then get rid of it. Do it right, or not at all.
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (J
> There's nothing inherently unstable about non-free software, so I
> think "non-free" and "unstable" should be orthogonal concepts. How
> about a "non-free/stable" in which nothing depends on anything outside
> of "stable", and a "non-free/unstable", in which anything goes?
>
Sure, that's the b
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) writes:
> People seem to think that "non-free" is more stable than "unstable".
> This is AFAIK not the case ("non-free" doesn't have the sabilising
> time "stable/buzz" has), and therefore I don't know why people start
> installing
>
> Hi. When I try to install the Debian ghostscript package, dselect
> notes that it depends on another package which is not available.
It is available.
People seem to think that "non-free" is more stable than "unstable".
This is AFAIK not the case ("non-free" doesn't have the sabilising
time
Hi. When I try to install the Debian ghostscript package, dselect
notes that it depends on another package which is not available.
What do I need to do to either get this other package (I don't
recall it's name at the moment) or get an older version of gs which
does not have this dependency?
Dave
5 matches
Mail list logo