Re: Software in main that is throughly useless without non-free software

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On 3 May 1999, James Troup wrote:

> Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > If the protocol is published the lack of a free server AT THE MOMENT
> > should not penalize the software.
> 
> Blah.  If a program, foobar, is linked against the non-free libevil,
> it goes in contrib.  The fact that someone is planning, writing or
> even thinking about writing a libgood DFSG replacement for libevil,
> does *not* mean we put foobar in the main.  In the same way the fact
> that there is _currently_ no free server is all that matters.

I think there are subtle differences between dynamic linking and the
server/client model.

Following this example, AFAIK, it would be the "Depends: libevil" control
field what would make us to put foobar in contrib (and nothing else).

In this case:

May the server run on another machine?

Is there an unsatisfied "strong" dependency (Depends or Recommends) if
the client is installed but not the server?

Policy says:

   Examples of packages which would be included in "contrib" are
     * free packages which require "contrib", "non-free", or "non-US"
       packages or packages which are not in our archive at all for
       compilation or execution,

If the meaning of the word "require" above is different than the one that
makes a package to actually Depends: or Recommends: another one, maybe
policy should be clarified first.

Thanks.

-- 
 "166c198dcac374cc0673fb8b7e15eab7" (a truly random sig)