Previously Ben Collins wrote:
> The new packaging format should not require maintainers of non-restricted
> packages to change their control files. A new control file tag could be added
> (and would require dpkg and friends to add some code to handle it) in a form
> similar to 'Restrictions:'. If the line is missing, the package should be
> considered non-restricted.
Only dpkg-gencontrol would need to be changed iirc, the rest will just
ignore the new tag. Oh, and lintian of course :)
> Each standard would then be given a brief User understandable statement such
> as "This software contains encryption methods that may fall under
> restrictions of use or distribution in your country" to be contained in the
> package system (not the package itself).
Something like a Packages file for restrictions? For example:
Restriction: crypto
Countries: US
Description: Cryptograhopic code
Some countries do not allow you to export or use cryptography. For
example the US considers cryptography as munitions, which are
export-restricted.
This also shows another problem: there can be restrictions on both
usage and export. We might want to seperate those.
> The country codes should not be considered mandatory but the maintainer
> should be encouraged to review his restricted package as much as possible
> to give the Users as much info as possible.
That would mean storing things double. I think country codes should only
be listed in a Restriction-field if a global restriction-list doesn't have
an entry for a problem yet.
> However, the ftp site scripts that parse the control files and places the
> packages into the apporpriate directories, would place all restricted
> packages into a similar layout as the standard distribution accept in an
> apporpriate directory.
We might want to make the seperation somewhat higher in the hierarchy
to make mirroring simpler:
/pub/debian
dists/
etc.
/pub/debian-restricted
dists/
etc.
This way mirroring /pub/debian can be done like it's done now, and we
can introduce the new debian-restricted gradually, along with a new
tool to mirror things.
> potato-r/
> |\main/
> | Packages-r
> | Packages-r.gz
Why change the name of the Packages file? We already know we're in the
restricted tree by looking at the cwd.
> The package system requirements:
> Obviously the package systems would have to be modified to incorporate
> this new setup.
Only the downloading parts of the package system, ie apt and dselect.
If my memory servers me correctly Philip Hands once offered his system
to test a new setup for the FTP archive. We might want to take him up
on that offer to test this by putting a debian-restricted hieararchy
there. Since he lives in the .uk we should have no legal problems..
Wichert.
--
==============================================================================
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: wakkerma@cs.leidenuniv.nl
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
Attachment:
pgpjQcKcqgqut.pgp
Description: PGP signature