Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:38:59PM +0000, Darren Salt wrote:
> > I suggest that the removal is implemented by replacement with a dummy
> > package which depends on one of the free equivalents and which will be
> > present in (at least) the next stable release; a bug should be filed for the
> > removal of the dummy package in time for a subsequent stable release.
>
> I think that would be a terrible way to do it. It's much better to
> simply drop the package. That way people can keep it around on their
> systems for as long as they like, instead of innocently upgrading
> to a dummy version.
I agree. And who defines what's "equivalent"? Mozilla is not
meaningfully "equivalent" to Netscape 4.x if your bank's web site works
with Netscape 4.x, but not Mozilla. (Of course, that's the bank's fault
for hiring incompetent web designers, but that's probably outside your
control.)
> If we want, we can always define something like a Supersedes header
> to indicate which packages are improved replacements of others
> (without necessarily conflicting with each other, like the Conflicts &
> Replaces combination does).
I have no idea how much work it would be to support a new header in
all of our packaging-related tools, but it sounds like a waste for
something we're trying to phase out in the first place.
An even simpler, more in-your-face approach would simply be to (ab)use
debconf to put up one of those "informational" dialog boxes saying,
"This is a non-free program. You might want to consider the following
free alternatives: ...". This has the advantage that the user is more
likely to see it (s/he may not look at the package's dependencies), but
the disadvantage that s/he won't see it at all unless and until a
non-free package is installed.
Craig
Reply to: