Bug#603680: libnautilus-extension1: breaks nautilus-share upgrade from lenny
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:26:37PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I still fail to see why. How can it be more problematic to install alternative
> B if (and only if) alternative A is not installable? I don't think that a user
> expects that APT ignores or-groups and just always only works with the first
> package in the or-group and fails if it doesn't work out with it.
The problem is not the user expectation in this case. Users seldom looks at all the
Depends: field of packages beofre upgraidng them.
The problem is the expectation of the developers that wrote the Depends line:
they expected that the non-free or-group would not replace the free group
unless the user installed the non-free alternative before.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: