Re: weekly policy summary
Hiya :)
> Date: 10 Jun 1999 13:05:03 +0200
> To: Jim Lynch <jim@laney.edu>
> cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
> From: "Davide G. M. Salvetti" <salve@debian.org>
> Subject: Re: weekly policy summary
>
> What I do think should be policy is that main (which includes non-US
> free software) should exist without any reference at all to contrib
> and non-free.
I think I agree in principle, as long as (1) your definition is as
below, and you don't actually add the definition of "reference" to
policy. I would strongly disagree to such a definition, because
"reference" can be used in contexts other than debian packages
within the policy document usefully (examples: memory reference, object
reference, file reference, perl reference). I don't think I'd object to a
definition in policy of the words "relation between packages", so
long as it was carefully defined and used.
> I think it's good that maintainers who wish to help people with
> non-free needs do so and continue to do so, providing packages for
> them. However, if we are really after developing a free (universal)
> operating system, we should concentrate ourselves on free software and
> provide a consistent collection of free software and just free
> software. This means, IMHO, that free packages should not reference
> non-free packages in the Debian sense (i.e., suggests, recommends, and
> depends).
Here, we agree. I don't want to use the word "mention" or "reference" here,
but I'd rather just go ahead and say "suggest", "recommend" or "depend upon".
If it's to be policy, the wording must be accurate, correct and rigorously
defined. I see no room for not doing so, where policy is concerned.
-Jim "Do I have a vote yet? :)" Lynch
Reply to: