On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 12:17, Joey Hess wrote: > Mathieu Roy wrote: > > 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? > > In the rare instances in the past when I have used installer packages > for non-free software, no, I have been more interested in a package that > can keep the non-free software up-to-date during upgrades. And I cannot > see how packages that build debs or merely offer commands to build debs > can do so. > > I'm much more annoyed/concerned that mozilla, mozilla-firebird, and > galeon all obtrusuvely offer (over and over again and there's no obvious > way to even turn it off) to install non-free software every time I visit > a site with flash on it. I think that's an example of something not > unlike installer packages in _main_ that ought to be dealt with. (This is in case you don't know, or someone else doesn't. It is definitely not an ideal solution to the problem.) # rm /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libnullplugin.so stops most (all?) of those messages. nullplugin is responsible for asking to install stuff. I suppose a particular site could do some evil JavaScript to detect and recommend something non-free anyway, but I don't see any way to avoid that. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part