Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:17:13AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Colin Watson <firstname.lastname@example.org> a tapot? :
> > I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing
> > one of those ways. Go on. It's my honest belief that it can't be done
> > correctly; I'm open to hearing ways in which I'm wrong.
> Instead of having a package the binary and install it, we can surely
> have the package that set up a directory in /usr/src with everything
> needed to be build the debian package + a script in /usr/bin that
> would create the package and install effectively (named after the
> installer package name, for instance).
> There's no reason when you install an "installer" to have a software
> installed, apart from the installer itself. You should have a tool
> that permits you to install the software and that's what I'm proposing.
> If you remove the installer, all these files would be removed, whatever
> the fact you may have build and installed the non-free software or
> I think it's a pretty easy solution to have something clean.
I think that's a step backwards. In particular, it's now impossible to
have an installer package which Provides: a virtual package in a
sensible way; it introduces an extra manual step into the sequence, and
to be honest I don't see many advantages over just installing the
software in /usr/local and managing it with stow.
But I guess some people might like it.
> > > Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do
> > > not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software,
> > > as long as a technical solution is provided?
> > I guess so, if the technical solution is correct. Severity something
> > less than release-critical, though.
> Is this technical solution acceptable for you?
I think if you want to do your installer packages this way then that's
fine, but I would disagree with making everybody do it. *shrug*
Colin Watson [email@example.com]