Re: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove references to non-free from main
Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 12:19:57AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Chris Waters <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > The other objection I've seen is, basically, "the purity of the system
> > > is marred by the very presence of even the *names* of non-free
> > > packages." My opinion of this notion is unprintable. :-)
> > I can't think of anything to add to that. Except to comment that it
> > might be rather difficult to document samba if you could never refer
> > to non-free software. :-)
> You're suggesting you don't recognize the difference between package
> structure and documentation?
The fact that I have already moved any non-free suggests in my
packages to the package description (even though I didn't have to)
should demonstrate that I am quite conversant with the difference.
However, what Manoj, Knghtbrd, I and others have been suggesting would
effectively make non-free suggests into no more than documentation for
people who don't configure their system to see non-free software.
In point of cold fact, with a weak-suggests, or with suggests modified
to do nothing for unavailable packages, the names of non-free packages
would be *less* visible, at least for my packages, because the
depends/suggests fields aren't shown by default in dselect, while the
description is. Thus, both the free software fanatics and the
don't-care non-free software users would benefit. I think that's what
they call a Big Win. :-)
Chris Waters email@example.com | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or firstname.lastname@example.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.