Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 01:59:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Not quite. I think, though, I have changed my mind about the
> > proposed solution. I think we do need to more strongly brand the
> > non-free section, and what is Debian.
>
> Do you have any concrete suggestions (aside from package signing, which
> is embroiled in controversy that has nothing to do with "non-free")?
Yes, non-free --> unofficial is a good suggestion.
Second, modify apt so that unofficial packages could not be upgraded at
the same time as official packages. That is, you would have to do
apt-get install unofficial foo
or
apt-get upgrade unofficial.
Note: concern about dependencies would probably require that contrib be
moved into unofficial, also. I would suggest
unofficial/license_constrained for what is now non-free
and
unofficial/dependant for what is now contrib.
Don't use DSFG in the name, as that jargon cannot be understood by an
outsider.
Jim Penny
>
> --
> G. Branden Robinson | Mob rule isn't any prettier just
> Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a
> branden@debian.org | government.
> http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Reply to: