Re: installer for non-free packages in contrib

[Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org>]

Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> writes:

> Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.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
>>     else.
>
> 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.