On Sun, Nov 15, 1998 at 04:48:52AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Ben Collins wrote: > > BUT, i still believe that you cannot make a main package depend on a > > non-US package under the current distribution techniques. > > The trick here is how you look at non-US. The best way to look at it IMHO > is to see non-US as a n`addition value pack' for Debian, which happens to > be managed by the same people as the normal Debian distribution. So we > have standard Debian, as found on ftp.debian.org, and you have `Debian+non-US' > as different distributions. The only problem with that is there _are_ some non-US packages that are not DFSG. > > Having something in the control file to denote whether the package falls into > > US only, or Domestic would be easy. > > Are you also volunteering to check for all packages if they are allowed in > all countries in the world? Good luck.. There is currently no checking now, so what's the difference since the way things are now, the maintainer is given the decision of whether or not to put it on non-US or the main site. So what's a little extra feature of the control file having this so that dpkg "knows" whether it is or isn't. This wouldn't be just for the non-US packages, but also for any packages that want to be in main and have dependancies on non-US packages, that way the CD system could tell which packages to include in a restricted (crypto included) and which to include in a standard (no crypt) CD. > > The other question remains is how much debian can be held accountable for > > it's enforcement (or lack of) controlling the distribution of this > > it's US only distribution? > > Do we really want to know that? I don't want to be in a position where this > matters. We should not allow to get ourselves into a position where we can > be held accountable. I made the mistake of looking at this from a US standpoint, my appologies for the confusion in my statement. Debian wouldn't be in any different of a situation than they are now. Just the crypto included CD/dist would have to be available from outside the US, and the standard CD/dist would be avaliable the same way it is now (similar to how there is a mutt and a mutt-i). I'm talking complete distributions, not a seperate non-US and main. The above mentioned addition to the control file would aid in the creation of these seperate dists (potato and potato-i for example?). Any non-US package, or package that depends on a non-US package (program linked to libssl for example), would have a line like "NonUS: yes". Other packages could include "NonUS: no" or leave it out and be considered 'no' by default. This justs denotes which dist to put them in. Then other things that are non-US but not DFSG, like ssh, could be put into contrib on the -i dist. Hope that clears up my view on this. -- ----- -- - -------- --------- ---- ------- ----- - - --- -------- Ben Collins <b.m.collins@larc.nasa.gov> Debian GNU/Linux UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. bcollins@debian.org ------ -- ----- - - ------- ------- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
Attachment:
pgprHFFUFVq3_.pgp
Description: PGP signature