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.
On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 04:40:14AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> 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.
As I recall, the discussion kind of died out when people realized that
this would require a dpkg change -- at the time, "dpkg change" seemed
to imply that several years might go by before the feature became
available.
> 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.
That's solvable: create a virtual package which has a free instance
(such as Mozilla) which provides the interface you're taking advantage of.
--
Raul
Reply to: