Re: "non-free" installer packages in our supposedly Free sections.
Hi
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:13:17PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
>
> I've noticed there's quite a few almost-empty packages lurking in
> the archive, whose sole purpose seems to be to download non-free
> software and install it on a users' systems.
>
> I don't like the fact that these seem to be (randomly) scattered
> over main and contrib. Although the installer packages themselves
> certainly are Free, I feel the social contract is being violated
> when I have main and contrib in my sources.list file, but after
> having completed the installation of a package from these sections,
> non-free software is installed on my system.
>
> Here's a quick list of suspected packages:
>
> vtkdata-installer optional
Installs example reference data. It could probably stay there.
> acl-installer contrib/devel
> acl-pro-installer contrib/devel
> atokx contrib/utils
> daemontools-installer contrib/misc
> djbdns-installer contrib/net
> f-prot-installer contrib/utils
Contrib is a perfectly ok place for installers.
> flashplugin-nonfree optional
This is in contrib!
> hyperspec optional
Also in contrib!
> ibm-jdk1.1-installer contrib/devel
> int-fiction-installer contrib/games
> lw-per-installer contrib/devel
> lw-pro-installer contrib/devel
> msttcorefonts contrib/graphics
> nvidia-kernel-src contrib/x11
> nvidia-glx-src contrib/x11
> qmailanalog-installer contrib/mail
> quake2-data contrib/games
> roxen-ssl contrib/web
> roxen2-ssl contrib/web
> sdic-edict contrib/text
> sdic-gene95 contrib/text
> setiathome contrib/misc
Contrib is a ok place for installers.
> realplayer net
I can not find this in the archives.
> I've not verified all of these being such installer packages for
> non-free software, nor do I claim it to be complete. Just to give
> you a rough idea. Also, they're of different nature -- some install
> the non-free software from their post-installation scripts, while
> others install a script in /usr/sbin/ which will do the installation
> of the non-free software when run.
>
> I'd like to submit bugs on these, asking them to move to non-free.
> So consider this email an invitation to discussion before a mass-bug
> filing.
>
> If the list agrees that bugs are warranted, which severity should I
> use? In my opinion it's a violation of the social contract and thus
> serious, but I've been recently told I should probably not use my
> own opinion as a justification for using the RC levels, so mayhaps
> wishlist would be better?
I can not find any bugs in this list. So please do not fine anyone.
The contrib section is precisely for free software that depends on
non-free (or software outside the archives) to be able to work as
expected.
Regards,
// Ola
> --
> Tore Anderson
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal@debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
| opal@lysator.liu.se 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: