Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:41:33PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Colin Watson <firstname.lastname@example.org> a tapot? :
> > 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;
> Which "virtual package"? The package that will be built will be a
> completely normal package.
I mean something like 'Package: ibm-jdk1.1-installer' 'Provides:
java-virtual-machine'. Maybe that's not a problem, *shrug*, but it seems
like it'd be kinda useful to have that in the Packages files for
dependency analysis across the entire distribution.
> > > > > 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*
> You're funny.
> 1. Theorical proposal: you replied that you need a technical proposal
... that satisfies certain things I think are important.
> 2. Technical proposal: you reply that you do not agree with the
> theorical proposal.
No, I said that your technical proposal doesn't satisfy some things I
think are important. I'm just being honest. However, I'm not going to
stop you trying to implement it if you can convince the maintainers
involved. I don't maintain any contrib installers. You don't need my
> In my previous mail, I suspected you to be strangely obstructive.
I'm not obstructing anything. I'm disagreeing. There's a big difference.
Here's a free hint: not everybody who disagrees with you is obstructing
you or against freedom or whatever insults you feel like dreaming up.
> Beside from that, I have a strange sensation when I see you telling
> that it's fine that a package in contrib basically contains a non-free
> software* and in the same time claiming that GFDLed software are very
> evil in regards of freedom.
Oh, get back under your bridge.
* When did I say that I thought contrib installers for non-free
software were OK? I've just looked back through this thread and the
previous one on the same subject and I can't find any such statement
from me. For the record, I think they pass the letter of Debian
policy and don't deserve release-critical bugs, but they seem to be
a bit of a hacky workaround, and I think it'd probably be more
honest if we put them in non-free. If you're going to argue with me,
at least have the basic decency to argue with *me*, not somebody
* "GFDLed software", eh?
* The fact that I and many others think that the GFDL is non-free
doesn't mean I think it's "very evil", and has nothing to do with
this debate anyway.
* Again, stop sending me private copies of list mail.
I won't waste my time arguing further with somebody who's getting into
ad hominems and is intent on turning a disagreement into a flamewar.
*plonk* Please don't send any further mail to this address.
Colin Watson [email@example.com]