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:
http://www.debian.org/~licquia/repoman-0.1.tar.gz
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: