Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 10:50:14AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Either I'm mistaken, or your statement is highly disingenuous. It
> > *would* effectively prevent me from downloading non-free software in the
> > way I would like: as debs, from the Debian site, using apt.
>
> A false alternative. What is wrong with downloading software, as debs,
> from some site on the site, using apt?
Trust to the people who made the packages. Isn't that important? At the
moment, we (I) may hope every piece of software that comes from *debian.org,
can be trusted. Every package I downloaded from elsewhere had to be checked if
it had additional "features". As soon as package signing (or whatever it's
called) is implemented, I'll be able to check if the package comes from the
maintainer, and, as result, mirrors can be easily verifiable.
If non-free gets removed from debian, non-free packages are to be placed
elsewhere. And now what? I has to check every that package?
Even for non-free packages, maintainers try to follow policy, what makes
those non-free packages consistent: I can install them, I can remove them,
everything is fine (modulo bugs :). I believe that every package that's
installed into debian archive gets checked by lintian (am I wrong?). Now
an alternative is proposed: we do not care how good those non-free packages
are. I would not say I like this alternative too much.
> There will always be non-free software. Will there always be a non-free
> section? Will we always need one? Do we really need one now? Is it
> possible for users to get their non-free software needs met through
> non-official-Debian sources while still using the Debian operating system?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Hopefully in distant (proper word?) future.
> > If this is put into effect, I really would have to reconsider my choice
> > of distributions. *Very* regretfully. :-(
>
> Well, I would hope you would not make your decision until you had seen and
> studied the real consequences, instead of the falling-sky scenarios that
> some opponents of the GR are positing.
Well, would you mind enumerating these "real" consequences? I do not see
any "killer" pros here. And I am very sorry about that, as I feel that
a certain amount of people sees that, and it's pity as I do not understand
their's point.
--
Misha
Reply to: