[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove references to non-free from main

>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

 >> Free and non-free are a consequence of the *licence*, which
 >> has little to do with how the package works technically.

 Raul> Sure, and now you seem to be advocating some new package headers
 Raul> which are a consequence of the license.

        Please review the dialog. I have never suggesed *any* package
 headers which are a consequence of the license. I support the
 addition of enhances, since it complements the suggests keyword, and
 would be useful. Enhances is, IMHO, orthogonal to the hiding non-free
 packages from people who do not wish to see them.

 >> 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
 >> relationships.

 Raul> 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
 >> should.

 Raul> Still no problem.

        I am glad.

 Raul> But all this reasoning applies for the case of a free package
 Raul> with a non-free micro-package which enhances the free package
 Raul> and which suggests various non-free elements.  Except that it
 Raul> doesn't require any license dependent package headers.

        So where is the disagreement? I just object to changin a
 relationship that is bertter expressed as a suggests into a reverse
 enhances, purely based on licencing. 

 Raul> The "Enhances:" header is already going to be useful for things like
 Raul> gimp plugins and perl libraries.

        There is no disageement here.

 Almost nothing in Perl serves a single purpose. Larry Wall in
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8
1024D/BF24424C fingerprint = 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24

Reply to: