Re: alternative dependency ordering - with respect of packages in main
On September 22, 2011 12:06:11 PM Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 08:19:32AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > > So *every* time a package outside of main is an installation candidate
> > >
> > > the decision should be made, not once, very much indeed.
> >
> > As someone who doesn't care about licences
>
> Since this effectively translates to not caring about the freedom of the
> software you install, I think it's safe to say you're in the minority among
> Debian users - and certainly among Debian developers.
Your translation is off. It is simply a consequence of not being in a position
where the restrictions that come with any license which allow Debian to
distribute the software are relevent to my use of it.
> I'm confident that Debian will continue to prefer to install only free
> software as dependencies when installing from main, even when contrib and
> non-free are enabled on the system.
As am I.
> > I disagree. The only way a non-free package is going to be automatically
> > selected is if the sysadmin has added non-Main lines to sources.list, and
> > the Maintainer has placed a non-Main package before one from Main in the
> > dependency statement--that's two explicit actions that need to be taken,
> > compared to zero if non-Main stuff isn't wanted.
>
> The latter is not something the maintainer is allowed to do, because it's
> making a decision for non-free software *on behalf of the user*.
>
> If the free alternative doesn't work well enough to be listed first, then
> the package depending on it belongs in contrib, *not* in main.
That's my understanding of how things should be setup.
> > I hope Debian would honour the Social Contract and put the needs of the
> > users ahead of software freeness concerns in that case.
>
> Do we have a name for the DFSG equivalent of Godwin's Law? Because you
> just failed it.
Well, that's disappointing... called a Nazi for daring to explore the
possibilities. <sigh>
Reply to: