Re: practical difference between "main" and "contrib"/"non-free" package sections
Hi.
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 10:15:36 +0300
Alexander <misterepicmannow@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello. It is said on the Debian website, that contrib and non-free
> packages get security updates whenever it is possible, some of these
> packages are maintained by official Debian teams (for example,
> firmware-linux-nonfree is maintained by Debian Kernel Team). Seems like
> the only practical difference in Debian's attitude to contrib/non-free
> is that packages from contrib/non-free cannot be included in official
> Debian installation images and there is no difference in how Debian
> supports main, contrib, non-free. Am I right?
> Thank you.
No, you're mistaken. Every package should be maintained by someone (or
by some team) or it's excluded from the Debian archive.
The main difference between 'main' and 'non-free' is that 'main'
software's source can be modified by maintainer (and of course, any
end-user if said user wishes to do so). 'non-free' software may lack
the source entirely.
'contrib' serves as a shim between 'main' and 'non-free' in a sense
that by itself 'contrib' software is free (as in 'liberty'), but it's
useless without 'non-free'.
In terms of support it means that every time some bad vulnerability is
discovered - 'main' software can be patched at once. For 'non-free'
software everyone is left at the mercy of software vendor. For
'contrib' it depends on the scale of possible breakage.
Of course, there are politics involved. For example, the very
'firmware-linux-nonfree' package you mention was not considered
'non-free' by certain Debian Developers back in the day said package
was invented.
Or, for example, 'hplip' package provides certain programs
with the only function of downloading and installing non-free blobs,
yet the package itself resides in 'main'.
Reco
Reply to: