On Thursday 22 July 2010 04:49:18 Bill Allombert wrote: > For my part I would prefer to keep the current policy and use Provides for > non-free software. I see two problems with that, and I actually object to that idea: a) Provides means, in this case the non-free package, has a compatible interface to that of the package in main. This might not always be true. Take mailscanner as an example: it has support for multiple different antivirus software and they obviously don't provide the same interface (and some of them are available as .deb packages.) b) In your other email (#17 of this report) you claim that: * "Debian would not advertize non-free software," [1] and * that "non-free is not part of Debian." So, how can you distinguish a package not in Debian from a non-free package? (which, as you said, is not part of Debian -- redundancy intended.) There are also cases where a given package is no longer free, and what usually happens is that a free fork is created under a different name. In those cases we would still "advertise" the non-free software for at least some time (e.g. during the lifetime of stable and oldstable, etc.) [1] By the way, you were asked for references or pointers but you haven't provided any. It would be important for this discussion to have them, if there is any. Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.