Re: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove references to non-free from main
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
Raul> I just don't think that specifically enhancing the package structure
Raul> with extra kludge to specially support non-free packages is the right
Raul> way to go.
Look below to see why it is not a kludge.
Raul> I think that the right way to go is to put the references themselves
Raul> into non-free. The data structure itself is less complicated, the
Raul> complexity is represented in the data.
Raul> And, by the way, you've still not explained why you think the approach
Raul> I'm advocating is grotesque and that the approach you're advocating
Raul> is elegant.
Because the suggests and dependencyis and other relationships
are based on how the packages work: they are, in some ways, a
natural consequence of the what the package is, and does.
Free and non-free are a consequence of the *licence*, which
has little to do with how the package works technically.
Now, the relationships will be independent of the licence,
just depending on what the packages are (elegant, in my opinion), and
I tell my tools what packages I do not want installed (not imposing
my vierws on other people, nor using licencing issues to distort
This is configuring how my package management system behaves
on my machine. Again, elegance. It shows me what I want to see, as it
If for every rule there is an exception, then we have established
that there is an exception to every rule. If we accept "For every
rule there is an exception" as a rule, then we must concede that
there may not be an exception after all, since the rule states that
there is always the possibility of exception, and if we follow it to
its logical end we must agree that there can be an exception to the
rule that for every rule there is an exception. Bill Boquist
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E