My Repositories

Darcs:

I am now keeping my darcs repositories online. You can access the viewer here, or get/pull using http://darcs.sym-link.com/<repo name>. As always, patches are very welcome.

Debian Packages:

My package repositories have been up for years and it is high time I said something.

DON'T USE THEM. Seriously. I use these repositories for development versions of packages I am working on, or backports for personal use, and they are quite often poorly maintained. They have been known to cause loss of data, loss of hair, erectile dysfunction, gout, hypertension, in-grown toe nails, and premature senility.

If for whatever reason you choose to ignore the above warnings, or on the off-chance I have specifically pointed you at these repositories, you can enable them by placing the following in your sources.list

# Repositories Eric told me not to use.
deb http://debian.sym-link.com <suite> <package name>
deb-src http://debian.sym-link.com <suite> <package name>

NP: Bat Country, Avenged Sevenfold

General Resolution: GFDL Position Statement

[ 1 ] Choice 1: GFDL-licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases
[ 3 ] Choice 2: GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free
[   ] Choice 3: GFDL-licensed works are compatible with the DFSG [needs 3:1]
[ 4 ] Choice 4: Further discussion

Despite the creative interpretations of the GFDL and the DFSG that some have offered, I still do not believe that the GFDL meets the requirements for inclusion in Debian main. Not the letter, and certainly not the spirit.

Documents that do not contain invariant sections are much less problematic, but the implications of the DRM-clause are still an issue, (regardless of whether it is a bug in the wording or not). Nevertheless, I did rank Adeodato's amendment just above "Further discussion" in the interest of compromise.