[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: (in lieu of a) Vendor field on .debs (was practical problems with GR)



> On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 10:48:33AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:

[snip]

> 
> Why? Each vendor has his own BTS (vendors including e. g. Debian or
> Corel). Individuals that provide their own debs outside of an official
> distribution can just provide their e-mail address in such a header.
> BTS mail is perfectly human-readable.
> 
> I do not see where there would be a split that doesn't exist at the
> moment. You can't file bugs against Corel or Helixcode packages in the
> Debian BTS, can you?

You are correct. There is a BTS split now. The current BTS split may stay to a 
great extent in the future.

You cannot file bugs affecting foreign packages either now (and this is good). 
As the packages you noted are neither in debian nor have been tested for 
compatibility so it is OK. I am speaking about something else:

What about the logical situation when the vendor offers debs, has a debbugs 
compatible BTS and the package is distributed with debian.

> 
> > 	I would rather suggest keeping a list of vendors that have complied with the 
> > a few principles on how to maintain the stuff. If it comes from them bug goes 
> > to their BTS cc'ed into Debian BTS.
> > 	If it comes from vendors off the list than dpkg should ask a question with 
> > appropriate priority with something like "Dependencies on this package have 
> > not been verified and the package is not being tracked by the Debian BTS". 
> > Some other verbal voodo may follow.
> 
> Thereby dividing debs into "good" and "bad" or "first-class" and
> "second-class". That's surely not the way to go.

Sure it is ;-) They are good and bad. first class and second-class. Compliant 
with the package policy and non-compliant. With b0rken dependencies and with 
dependencies that are proper.

IMHO: 
	This is the thing to do to keep the user happy if non-free is irradicated 
with prejudice (oops, where did my asbestous jacket go). OK, no non-free 
software. Whatever, let the daltonians be happy.

	Then, why not allow people who wish to deal with non-free software to certify 
that that software works with debian? And make the certification official? And 
keep the bugs tracked properly?

	In btw: in "the despised world of commercial software" this is a paid (and 
highly paid for the matter) service.


Attachment: pgp4SFmfKpVLB.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: