On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 03:33:29PM -0300, hellekin wrote:
> On 12/06/2014 02:09 PM, Matteo Panella wrote:
> > On 06/12/2014 14:24, hellekin wrote:
> >> *** Well, the "wrong" with non-free, is that it's antisocial.
> >
> > Just to be clear: you're proposing to either publicly shame vendors
> > _and_ users[1][2] or drop the non-free section altogether.
> >
> *** No I'm not. I'm proposing to call things for what they are. Given
> the course of global human civilization, there's no time to play.
> Non-free software is antisocial, as is antisocial to try and impose a
> single totalitarian system, such as systemd.

Never mind worrying about nonfree. systemd is probably free, by the
usual definitions. But let's add 'antisocial' and put systemd in it!

Then for the first iteration we just copy Debian. Put systemd into
antisocial. Then put packages into antisocial if they depend on things
in antisocial, and take them out when we manage to rewrite them.

antisocial will become a kind of todo list. But people who
(transiently) still have systemd deppendencies whilc converting to
devuan will have a chance to move over and adapt afterward.
Or they can compare their packagge list with our antisocial one before
crossing over from Debian and be adeuately warned what they are getting
into.

-- hendrik