Re: default softphone in Debian stretch
On 15/01/16 04:00, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> default softphone in Debian
> It should be up to the user what communications tools they want to use
> and or have installed (if any), that is none of our business, other
> than perhaps informing them of the security properties of what is
> available and or providing the default upstream tool choices via
> metapackages where available.
That is not the status-quo however. Are you saying that somebody
installing a default GNOME desktop should not automatically have Empathy
any more? That is actually what upstream discussed (link in the message
that started this thread), but without any conclusion.
If there are meta-packages (e.g. sip-client, xmpp-client), should any
softphone be able to assert that it provides sip-client? Or should
there be some quality threshold?
For example, WebRTC browsers must officially support G.711 and Opus
codecs. Many softphones don't support Opus yet. Should we say that
support for Opus is mandatory for any package that provides sip-client
or xmpp-client and any package that falls short has to remove the
Provides line from debian/control or be hit with an RC bug?
Using some threshold for quality and interoperability will help the
majority of users to choose from the more desirable softphones, but no
softphone would be excluded from the distribution.