Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib
Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> a tapoté :
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:17:13AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.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
> > not.
> >
> > 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;
Which "virtual package"? The package that will be built will be a
completely normal package.
> 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.
I already listed theses advantages previously. That the origin of the
thread.
> > > > 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
2. Technical proposal: you reply that you do not agree with the
theorical proposal.
In my previous mail, I suspected you to be strangely
obstructive. It's no longer a suspicion to my eyes and I strangely do
not see any argument ('go make your own GNU/Linux distro', what an
interesting proposal when discussing about how Debian works!).
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.
* No, it's not a dependancy, it does not need any other debian package
to install the software, it does install the software during the
installer package installation.
A pity.
--
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: