I'm getting tired of this. You keep avoiding my questions and changing the subject. Unless you start answering my questions, I'm going to stop responding. On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:21:01PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:55:43AM +0000, Dr. Bas Wijnen wrote: > > > > Are you saying that a Debian system where only main is enabled is unsafe? > > > [...] > > > > If that is correct, it is a huge problem that that is the default setup > > > > we ship, don't you think? > > > It is, but solving it most likely means actually violating Debian > > > principles, > > > > You cannot be serious... You believe that if our rules say we should harm our > > users, the rules are more important than the users? > No, I believe our users are more important and so you shouldn't set > arbitrary restrictions on main just so your apt search output could be > untainted. Don't change the subject. You say that non-free is essential for our users to be safe, but you find it acceptable that it is not enabled by default. How is that not hurting our users? > > Also, I'm interested to hear which rule would be broken > "Debian will remain 100% free", "non-free is not part of Debian" etc. Your position is that it is acceptable for a program in main to require a non-free service, as long as that non-free service doesn't run on the same computer. Why is that suddenly no longer true when the non-free service is hosted on our own servers? Or do you perhaps agree with me that a program requiring a non-free service cannot be in main? > > if we make it the default to provide our users with updates that they > > need to be safe. > But then you will be able to see and install non-free software, isn't that > what you don't want to happen? It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for our users. It would be better if the essential parts would be in a separate repository so I could enable only those, but as long as that isn't implemented, of course I think the safety of our users is more important than the looks of my package list. Finally, for the third time, please explain your position on my hypothetical unrar-nonfree scenario. Thanks, Bas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature