Bug#587279: Bug#603680: libnautilus-extension1: breaks nautilus-share upgrade from lenny
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:44:43PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> if you intend to reply to this subthread, please use the 587279 bug.
> On Mittwoch, 17. November 2010, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I do not think it is correct to ever upgrade a free package to a non-free
> > one. Now, apt is not at fault, the problem rather lie in a strange
> > interpretation of policy 2.1.2 by some developers. But we cannot ignore the
> 2.2.1
> > issue either.
>
> No. The "problem" lies in people adding non-free and contrib to their sources.
I disagree. I put non-free in my source.list so that 'apt-cache show' displays the
non-free packages, not to get any of them installed. This is important for reporting
bugs against non-free packages, and not breaking them inadvertently.
> So I think apt is actually right in those cases to upgrade to a non-free
> alternative. It's the users choice.
There are a variety of licenses in non-free and a user (or their lawyers) can be
fine with some of them but not all. The choice of non-free packages installed
should remain with the users.
Now apt is just a tool and I do not ask apt to be aware of non-free. However the
change in apt make the non-respect of policy 2.2.1 more problematic.
> Bill, so far you're the only one in #587279 objecting to the clarification
> making the what-you-call "strange interpretation" crystal clear (and
> following the way it was always handled).
Nobody in #587279 is saying that the text is ambiguous. This precisely why a
policy change was proposed in the first place.
(the text I am referring to is "the package must not declare a "Depends",
"Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-_main_ package")
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: