Re: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove references to non-free from main
> 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.
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 11:03:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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.
Sure, and now you seem to be advocating some new package headers
which are a consequence of the license.
> 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
No problem there.
> This is configuring how my package management system behaves
> on my machine. Again, elegance. It shows me what I want to see, as it
Still no problem.
But all this reasoning applies for the case of a free package with a
non-free micro-package which enhances the free package and which suggests
various non-free elements. Except that it doesn't require any license
dependent package headers.
The "Enhances:" header is already going to be useful for things like
gimp plugins and perl libraries.