Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
Mathieu Roy <email@example.com> writes:
> Colin Watson <firstname.lastname@example.org> a tapoté :
>> * 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
> So finally now you answered about the theorical proposal I made at
> first (I asked to put these packages in non-free or to force the
> installer to build the proper package).
> Is there anybody else that thinks too that these packages belongs to
> non-free / think that the installer should build a proper package?
I think having a package build another package is retarded. It should
just be available as a source package, like pine, and it should download
the non-free components at build time.
I'm sick of being the guy who eats insects and gets the funny syphilis.