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

Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free

On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 10:53:26AM -0700, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> I see the issue of pool integration as having the following sticking
> points:

Again at the expense of "tooting my own horn", may I humbly suggest,
once again, the proposal I made in debian-devel a short while ago
concerning an apt repository.  (Look for "RepoMan" in the archives.)
Experimental software can be found in:


I think it could address your points as follows:

> 1. Inter-archive namespace mgmt and dependency tracking.

No support there.

> 2. Identification of package source and other metadata about it's
>    archive of origin to facilitate the reporting of bugs to the
>    appropriate source, and managing the set of archives one pulls
>    packages from.

Management of sources is what the program does.  Perhaps, with a
little work, it could also identify currently-installed packages
pulled from specific repositories.

> 3. Package signature checks and trust networks for
>    developers/packagers.

Again, no.  This seems lower-level.

> 4. Directory services for package archives to facilitate the search
>    for third party archives.

This is the central question I am attempting to answer.  The basic
idea is similar to RSS/RDF channels, but for apt repositories.

> 5. Quality control guided by trust relations and reputation, as well
>    as lintian checks.

Again, no.

> I don't think all of these problems need be "nailed" prior to the
> removal of non-free/contrib, but I do think that it would be dishonest
> for the project to remove non-free/contrib with addressing these in a
> way that would minimize the distress to our users, many of whom have
> become very dependent upon Debian's current archive architecture.

Does my proposal help to address some of these, in your opinion?

Reply to: