Re: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove references to non-free from main
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.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
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
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 <email@example.com> <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