I have intended to go back and join all the discussions about the "non-free" repo but I have not had time so I will have to dive in here. In my opinion it is totally unnecessary. I agree that support for id-ing non-free pkgs should be fully implemented in pacman, indeed this is what I had thought the license field was for. As for the case of magazines and dumps of the repo - it's a scriptable solution. This can either be done locally by the downloader or server-side by us. How hard would it be to have pacman churn out all the URLs for free pkgs in [extra]? Not hard at all I think. This can then be used with wget. pacman support also has much broader benefits. That's a much more Arch-like solution than a separate repo. I'm also of the opinion certain people want a non-free repo because it will tidy up some "loose ends" with regards to the non-i686 arch projects. I'd hate to see time and emphasis diverted from pacman development to achieve something this spurious. As for our own DVD of [extra]...keep up, guys. It's 2007. DVD is virtually a synonym for "movie on disc" and even they are now being phased out in favour of downloads. The market is moving away from solid state format, not towards it. Arch is about 4-5 years too late for a package snapshot on hard media. Now, I am aware that there is an argument that there are some people in some parts of the world that don't have reliable internet access and so can't access the repos. I have the following questions on this case: * Can someone demonstrate 10 cases of this here and now? * Should these people be using a rolling release distro? * Why can't they make one DVD for multiple uses themselves? * What is the benefit to Arch of producing a DVD? * Why can't creation of the DVD be scripted using pacman features (as outlined above)? * If a lack of a DVD is restricting our audience then when did we care about that? I know my opinion is hardly a deal breaker but I just don't get the point of this whole non-free thing. Phil