Re: Visualboy Advance question.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:05:16AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:07:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > I don't think that the basis for a package's inclusion in main should be the
> > packaging in main of appropriate content.
>
> The Debian Policy says something pretty close to that, in my view.
>
> 2.2.1 The main section
>
> Every package in main and non-US/main must comply with the DFSG (Debian
> Free Software Guidelines).
>
> In addition, the packages in main
>
> * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or
> execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends",
I presume this condition is the basis for your view. I concur, but with
reservations when it comes to content, because there is a far wider range of
potential bitstreams which would allow the program to operate.
> OTOH, as you're sure to note, an easy way around this is that a package can
> be completely useless in main as long as what it depends on isn't a
> package. Maybe that *was* your point.
Not exactly. I'm not a fan of useless software on the whole, so I don't
believe that your work-around is a winner.
I prefer to fall back on the last sentence of the first clause of the social
contract: "We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
component.". Providing a piece of software which can only use non-free
content is "requiring the use of a non-free component", IMO.
> > That would be a waste of archive resources.
>
> Er, before heading down this road, I think you should attempt an objective
> demonstration that we seem to give a damn about wasting archive resources
> in the first place.
We don't give a damn? That's a pity.
- Matt
Reply to: