Re: Non-free section
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
[ snipped long mail... ]
> [ Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. ]
>
> On the other hand, non-free software is more difficult to
> support. We might not have the source code, or we might not
> be allowed to fix or enhance the program even if we do. Not
> making this clear to users is bad, bordering on dishonest.
> When we put something in the main distribution, we assume more
> responsibility for support than otherwise.
>
> That the main Debian distribution is and should always be free,
> and that non-free parts should be clearly separated, is quite
> axiomatic to the project. Changing this would change the whole
> character of Debian.
>
> > Besides, the definition of non-free (or proprietary) is a matter of
> > policy, the country you are in (US software patents), etc.
>
> > - relaxing the policy a little (for example, not making otherwise
> > free packages non-free just because they depend on a non-free
> > package, example: auto-pgp, mailcrypt, premail depend on pgp),
>
> No, that should not be done. The main Debian distribution should be
> idempotent -- everything in it should work without having to install
> other stuff.
>
I'm agreed here with all larz says. The distribution must not have
dependencies or recommended stuff in non-free *and/or* contrib. We
must distribute a standalone main distribution where every package
work by themselve.
However, I still don't like (just a question of preference) the way dselect
and dpkg rules all the distribution. IMHO, we must make it more distribution
aware. What I mean is:
- - Having dpkg --merge-avail not overwritting stuff in stable,
unstable, non-free and contrib; This can help a users who want a stable
system but still need some unstable stuff (this can be lot - just look
the difference between 1.1 and 1.2 ... You have 296 packages more or
something like that (I just estimate, really ;); This can help too for
some package - such as vrweb that I will download as soon as I received
my account and repair my floppy drive - who distributed a stable version
with source and an unstable (in development) without source (the first
can go in unstable, the second in contrib - waiting for a released of
the source without breaking the name scheme ).
- - Each distribution must have their same sectionning scheme, letting
dselect presenting stuff:
a) by distribution
b) by section (including all distribution stuff
c) or by priority
It seems this can be done easily without too much change in the release,
dpkg and dselect. Oh yes, and I'm working on a dpkg-patches ( with
options such as --build <old.deb> <new.deb> and --install
<pacakage-patch.deb> ). Having the first option (distribution awareness)
standardize will let another option for some little ftp sites who can put
all the distribution. It's too mush stupid to have to download a complete
package for just a little (but sometime important) change in a maintainer
script.
just my 2 pennies.
Ciao!
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
"Sex without love is an empty experience. But as empty
experiences go, it's one of the best."
-- Woody Allen
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Fabien Ninoles aka le Veneur || Running Debian-Linux
Ninf01@gel.usherb.ca || Lover of MOO, mountains,
http://www-edu.gel.usherb.ca/ninf01 || poetry and Freedom.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMtpMv1X6fc7jcjhFAQG9MgP/RKyftITGhE9CP5LUNWlIiNFGcbsmcifI
fP4rBXuDy/2Aeqea4XXprxOuhYk5vAAEleRmR5tkdIjoq2/QkpO1Gw9gITV/dcDl
OYtpgn6VD2wbIF1Owp051iAMvCU8zqR3wIg/XQYWzOxG/75KSuxnqd9tIFufuvao
xp1ZxQZhW/4=
=JXyi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: