Re: "non-free" software included in contrib
Ola Lundqvist <opal@debian.org> a tapoté :
> 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.
There is a difference between "software that depends on non-free
software to run" and "free installer of non-free software".
A software in contrib that have only the purpose of installing a
non-free software in is postinst script is, IMHO, maybe a good
candidate for non-free: it's not really a dependancy but a package
that include a non-free software -- even if the non-free software is
kept separated, outside the package.
A packaged installer is almost a subpackaging: we could include every
software in non-free in contrib, if we make free packages that download
from the net the non-free packages. So the distinction
non-free/contrib would be useless...
For instance, I make a package called satan-installer with a postinst
script that execute the following command:
http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/dists/potato/non-free/binary-i386/admin/satan_1.1.1-18.deb && dpkg -i satan_1.1.1-18.deb
would you like to include that satan-installer script in contrib?
It's almost how works flashplugin-nonfree.
http://packages.debian.org/testing/web/flashplugin-nonfree.html
So I do not agree that "Contrib is a ok place for installers". While
basically these installer are free software, it's a little bit
hypocritical to claim that these package contains free software.
Finally, someone who install the contrib flashplugin-nonfree get on
his computer a non-free software, possibly without even noticing it,
because he never seen a dependancy against a package in non-free.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: