Re: RFC: new policy on dependencies between distributions (was Re: need decision on packages with crypto hooks)
On Mar 29, Christian Schwarz wrote
> > by current policy a program goes into non-free, if it's policy doesn't
> > permit to put it on cdrom. even if it depends on a contrib program, you
> > still have to put it in non-free. that's because you can put contrib on
> > a cd-rom, but not non-free.
>
> No, that's not right. There are "contrib" packages that have some
> copyright restrictions (koules, picasm, etc.) that you can't put on a
> CD-ROM. And according to the current Policy Manual, section 2.3 states
> that "Packages which depend for their use on non-free or contrib packages
> may only be placed in the semi-supported contrib section".
and the last sentence sais :
(unless they need to be in non-free - see above).
so, if a program meets the conditions for non-free, it goes into
non-free, not contrib...
> Right. I thought that the license question has priority over the above
> dependency rule. Was this unclear?
yes, it was not clear (at least to me),
> That's another point: non-us doesn't have a stable/unstable seperation.
we don't need this : non-us isn't released, it's yust there. there are
no package files for non-us etc. but a stable/unstable/tested seperation
couldn't hurt (btw: maybe we will also need an experimental for non-us,
if someone wants to relase a non-us program to experimental...)
> This just makes it more complicated. What about mixing non-free and
> contrib? (Hope this brave question doesn't start a flamewar :-)
hmm. what about that:
non-us is everything, with export or import restriction to the us.
contrib is everything, that has a flaw, but may included on a cdrom.
non-free is everything, that may not included on a cdrom.
at least, that's how i understand current policy.
regards andreas
Reply to: