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

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: