Re: default softphone in Debian stretch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:08:35AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
> 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[1]
> >
> > 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.
I strongly disagree. Users should be able to choose, and we should not force
one option on them. But users should not be forced to choose. A major feature
of using a distribution is that you don't need to choose individual programs to
install, but get a well functioning system.
Don't confuse the freedom to choose with the obligation to choose. Freedom is
good, and so is having good defaults.
> 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?
I think there should be a threshold. Failing to meet that should be ground for
an RC bug. In other words, the package can be in unstable, but not in testing
(or stable).
> 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?
Yes, that sounds reasonable. If a package Depends: sip-client, things are
expected to work well.
> 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.
Also, an RC bug is not always a problem. If a maintainer believes that it is
useful to have a work in progress program in Debian, it can be in unstable,
with an RC bug to prevent it from entering testing.
Thanks,
Bas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=iUqi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: