Re: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove references to non-free from main
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@MIT.EDU> writes:
Thomas> I like the change to the policy document in question.
And I do not. Technically speaking, tihs additions is is a
bogosity, it adds packages, thast serve no purpose other than
religious, adds yet another layer of indirection, makes it harder for
a human to follow the chains of dependencies while reading available
files, and to what end?
Thomas> A reasonable compromise though would be to allow Suggests of
Thomas> non-free packages only through a virtual package
I do not find this reasonable. Or have we added versioned
provides already? Lacking versioned provides, this proposal
represents people jumping in, and, for religous reasons, providing
solution that do not work. Faugh.
Thomas> Then people can switch to a free alternative easily as soon
Thomas> as one is available, instead of (continuing!) to have
Thomas> important parts of Debian essentially dependent on (say)
Incidentaly, creating a virtual package that has only one
provider does not help you unless dselect behaviour is changed
as well. As far as dselect is concerned, you shall be shown
the non-free package anyway, as the sole provider of the virtual
package. Yet another reason that this so called compromise does not
work as expected.
Change dselect not to show suggests in heirarchies that are
not available. And this means non-US, as well as non-free. And ask
We should be giving users more choice. Not less.
DELETE A FORTUNE! Don't some of these fortunes just drive you nuts?!
Wouldn't you like to see some of them deleted from the system? You
can! Just mail to `fortune' with the fortune you hate most, and
we'll make sure it gets expunged.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E