bin32-zsnes http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19167 Already in multilib.
rocksndiamonds-fedora https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22418 Outdated, replaced by community/rocksndiamonds.
dune2 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33037 Broken link, and this is non-free game.
mahjongforunix http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22225 Already in extra with name mahjong.
Regards, Wanton.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Wanton wanton.clarion@gmail.com wrote:
bin32-zsnes http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19167 Already in multilib.
rocksndiamonds-fedora https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22418 Outdated, replaced by community/rocksndiamonds.
dune2 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33037 Broken link, and this is non-free game.
In a general way, non-free game/soft is a valid argument?
On 11/30/2010 11:51 PM, Seblu wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Wantonwanton.clarion@gmail.com wrote:
bin32-zsnes http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19167 Already in multilib.
rocksndiamonds-fedora https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22418 Outdated, replaced by community/rocksndiamonds.
dune2 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33037 Broken link, and this is non-free game.
In a general way, non-free game/soft is a valid argument?
No. Afaik even the official repositorys contain non-free software.
On 01.12.2010 00:11, PyroPeter wrote:
On 11/30/2010 11:51 PM, Seblu wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Wantonwanton.clarion@gmail.com wrote:
bin32-zsnes http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19167 Already in multilib.
rocksndiamonds-fedora https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22418 Outdated, replaced by community/rocksndiamonds.
dune2 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33037 Broken link, and this is non-free game.
In a general way, non-free game/soft is a valid argument?
No. Afaik even the official repositorys contain non-free software.
Indeed, rms wouldn't be happy. Anyhow, if end up discussing the ethics of non-free software we'll end up like Debian. Let's just let our users choose what they want to use as long as providing the software isn't illegal.
Just fix the broken link or orphan the package and let somebody else take over.
-- Sven-Hendrik
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 06:00 +0100, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
On 01.12.2010 00:11, PyroPeter wrote:
On 11/30/2010 11:51 PM, Seblu wrote:
dune2 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33037 Broken link, and this is non-free game.
In a general way, non-free game/soft is a valid argument?
No. Afaik even the official repositorys contain non-free software.
Indeed, rms wouldn't be happy. Anyhow, if end up discussing the ethics of non-free software we'll end up like Debian. Let's just let our users choose what they want to use as long as providing the software isn't illegal.
Just to play devil's advocate, illegal according to which jurisdiction =)
2010/12/1 Ng Oon-Ee ngoonee@gmail.com
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 06:00 +0100, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
On 01.12.2010 00:11, PyroPeter wrote:
On 11/30/2010 11:51 PM, Seblu wrote:
dune2 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33037 Broken link, and this is non-free game.
In a general way, non-free game/soft is a valid argument?
No. Afaik even the official repositorys contain non-free software.
Indeed, rms wouldn't be happy. Anyhow, if end up discussing the ethics of non-free software we'll end up like Debian. Let's just let our users choose what they want to use as long as providing the software isn't illegal.
Just to play devil's advocate, illegal according to which jurisdiction =)
Some things are for sure not legal in any jurisdiction...
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase sh@lutzhaase.com wrote:
On 01.12.2010 00:11, PyroPeter wrote:
On 11/30/2010 11:51 PM, Seblu wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Wantonwanton.clarion@gmail.com wrote:
bin32-zsnes http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19167 Already in multilib.
rocksndiamonds-fedora https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22418 Outdated, replaced by community/rocksndiamonds.
dune2 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33037 Broken link, and this is non-free game.
In a general way, non-free game/soft is a valid argument?
No. Afaik even the official repositorys contain non-free software.
Indeed, rms wouldn't be happy. Anyhow, if end up discussing the ethics of non-free software we'll end up like Debian. Let's just let our users choose what they want to use as long as providing the software isn't illegal.
Just fix the broken link or orphan the package and let somebody else take over.
-- Sven-Hendrik
Fix: as i know, its a commercial game.
I don't think this package belongs in AUR either, it should be in a separate pirate-repository. ;)
--- Alexander Rødseth
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alexander Rødseth rodseth@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think this package belongs in AUR either, it should be in a separate pirate-repository. ;)
Alexander Rødseth
This is a game from 1992. It is present on many abandonware websites. But the status of abandonware is not a real legit status...
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org