Re: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove references to non-free from main
Wichert Akkerman <wichert@cistron.nl> writes:
> I assume we are all aware of the discussion a couple of months ago
> about removing references to non-free from main. There was a consensus
> this should be done and a consensus was formed to do this via a new
> Enhances relation for packages.
That's not what I remember; I don't remember us ever *reaching* a
concensus. Esp. since I was part of that discussion, and *I* never
agreed that that was the best approach! IIRC, RMS suggested it, and
IWJ said he could implement it, but that was all at the very beginning
of the discussion, long before we had anything resembling consensus.
The problem with the "Enhances" idea (which several people, including
me, mentioned at the time) is that it puts the responsibility on the
wrong package.
If, e.g, my package can take advantage of Netscape, then it should be
the responsibility of my package, not Netscape, to mention that fact.
Otherwise, Netscape (in particular) may need to have hundreds of
packages listed under "Enhances". Not to mention that fact that it
may require new uploads of Netscape simply to add or remove packages
from Netscape's "Enhances" field. That's simply not a good or
sensible design. It may be ok for gimp-nonfree or tetex-nonfree,
where the "Enhances" is for one-and-only-one package, but it doesn't
work for the great majority of cases.
I still think that a field like "Will-take-advantage-of" is a better
approach, i.e. a quieter version of "Suggests", which is invisible
when the suggested package isn't available. (Better names for this
field are welcomed.)
I could and would use a "Will-take-advantage-of" field. But I'm *NOT*
going to bother to try to get Festival's maintainer or Netscape's
maintainer to add an "Enhances" field for my package. That's just too
much hassle. I'd rather do what I'm doing now: mention the non-free
packages in the documentation, but not in any fields that dselect/apt
can see.
I'm not opposed to the idea of "Enhances", but I don't think it solves
the problem it's intended to solve. I wouldn't mind if it existed
*alongside* of a "Will-take-advantage-of" field, but I think it would
be a bit redundant in that case.
The "Enhances" idea is a bit too much like expecting a library to list
all the packages that use it. It just doesn't make sense.
Package: Netscape
Version: whatever
Depends: blah-de-blah
Enhances: fvwm, icewm, enlightenment, sawmill, xchat, xchat-gnome,
gnome-panel, gnome-terminal, emacs19, emacs20, xemacs19,
xemacs20, xemacs21, gxedit, gmc, gimp, etc., etc., etc..... :-)
Note, that's just a small sampling of the programs which don't suggest
Netscape, but which *DO* try to use it, often whether it's available
or not (as I discovered when I uninstalled Netscape for while). All
of these programs would (or should) be suggesting Netscape if Netscape
were free.
"Enhances" is a bad design. If it's the best we can do, then I feel
sorry for us. :-)
cheers
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Reply to: