Re: [RFS] minigalaxy - simple GOG client
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 03:42:54PM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2021 at 15:16:31 +0100, Matija Nalis wrote:
> > Basically, you can ask yourself a question "Would people still be
> > using this package, if all functionality that downloads stuff
> > outside of Debian "main" archive was removed from it?"
>
> This can't be where the line gets drawn in practice, because there are
> lots of programs in main whose primary purpose is to download things
> that aren't in main, such as web browsers and IMAP/POP email clients.
My bad, I wasn't explicit enough: by "stuff" I meant the subject of
the mail, eg. non-DFSG game executables & data (if that is what
GOG provides?)
> Removing all network clients from Debian (except maybe apt) would
> certainly result in a 100% Free Software system, in the same way that
> putting a powered-off computer in a bank vault results in it being secure:
> it's true, but a lot less practically useful than what we have now.
Of course, that is not I was having in mind.
And I bow down to opinion on the subject to anyone having @debian.org
email, but I would like to understand the issue better, so your
insight is valued.
> Another question that might give something closer to the right answer
> is: if we imagine the non-main software that it downloads/loads/uses
> existed in main, contrib or non-free (whichever was appropriate),
> would the manager/downloader have a Depends or Recommends on it, or
> something weaker?
I did not manage to parse that, sorry. Are you talking here about GOG
game having depends on minigalaxy, or minigalaxy depending on GOG.com
games? What is meant by "it" in "the non-main software that it
downloads/loads/uses existed in main, contrib or non-free"?
Or is it about difference in using package control headers like
Depends/Recommends vs. having dependencies outside debian packages
(eg. wget/curl)? See comment below.
> In the case of lgogdownloader and minigalaxy, I suspect the answer
> would be no, because they don't require any particular game in order to
> do what they do. What they do is "download/manage games from GOG",
> and they can do that whether or not you have any particular game installed:
> the same reasoning as Firefox not needing a dependency on any packages that
> contain HTML.
I'm trying to understand this... When you say "dependency" do you
mean only on "Depends:" (and maybe "Recommends:") header in control
file of the package, or any *actual dependency* needed by the app to
run and perform its function?
Ie. if said firefox would not work at all without downloading some
non-free binary blob from getfirefox.com and running it, would that
be considered "dependency" in paragraph above, or not?
And in that light, would such firefox package be considered a "main"
or "contrib" material?
Would that answer differ if that was "Depends:" header to nonfree
package in control file (instead of non-free library downloaded with
curl)?
To me as a newbie it looks like it would be mostly irrelevant
implementation detail (if it downloads from debian.org/non-free or
getfirefox.com/non-free) but your answer seems to imply that it is
different? (Then again, english is not my native language so I
apologize if I misunderstand)
> I think that test also gives the right answer for things like the
> old flashplugin-nonfree package, where the purpose of the package was
> "play Flash animations", and the fact that it did that by downloading
> the plugin out-of-band is an implementation detail. If it could have
> (legally) achieved the same goal by having a copy of the plugin *in*
> non-free, it would have had a Depends on the actual plugin instead.
I have not had experiance with it, but I looked it up now.
If I understand correctly, flashplugin-nonfree was a "contrib"
package, so I assume it was DFSG code which downloaded and executed
non-free code from adobe.com (or somewhere similar)? Is that correct?
If correct, what is a distinction of flashplugin-nonfree from
minigalaxy (or from lgogdownloader)? Do they not also exist only to
download and execute non-free code from gog.com, and so should be in
same "contrib" as was the case with "flashplugin-nonfree"?
I'm obviously missing something (maybe because I am not a gog.com
user, or because my english is not good enough, or because I
fundamentaly misunderstand main/contrib difference, or combination
of above).
Thanks in advance for any clarifications
--
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.
Reply to: