Re: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove references to non-free from main
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
Raul> non-us/main is very different from non-free. The first consists of
Raul> DFSG software with temporary and/or localized distribution problems.
Raul> The second consists of non-DFSG software.
Yes, I am aware of the obvious difference. However, for a user
installing off a CD of the official CD image, they have a
commonality: both represent a heirarchy that is not currently
available, and there may be other reasons for not using the missing
heirarchies (I had to ask permisson at work before I could use
OpenSSH, for example).
I did not think I had to drive this point home.
Raul> And it buys us a clean separation between the DFSG and non-DFSG
Raul> parts of the system.
Im my opinion a suggestion offered by the package that is
effectively ignored by the package management system on demand (or
even by default), is a perfectly clean separation. None of the nasty
bytes may be poresent on ones machine unless one so desires.
Raul> Personally, I think that hard-coding into a DFSG package a reference
Raul> to some non-DFSG package is rather grotesque. I'm disappointed that
Raul> we disagree on this issue.
Personally, I find ignorig the non-free packages akin to
buring ones head in the sand. They exist out there. They make <this
package> work better. Pretneding they do not exist is, umm, well, I'd
rather not say.
>> Concentrating on the non-free in exclusion to the non-US is
>> putting the religious issue in front of technical ones; that's just
>> one thing that bothers me about this proposal. So far, Debian has
>> always been about excellence, not about fanaticism.
Raul> The distinction being?
Raul> Excellence has always been a matter of opinion -- informed, experienced,
Raul> opinion, but opinion nonetheless.
Raul> You're labelling DFSG issues as religion, and offering in its place
Raul> status quo.
I must object to this mischaracterization. I am not asking for
status quo -- I am asking for our package management sytem,
frontends to be enhanced with the ability to mask certain heirarchies
-- whether they are undesired, or merely unavailable. This is
certainly not a status quo.
Raul> But you're not thinking about the changes which are going to
Raul> happen as Linux (and Debian) become more popular, and are
Raul> adopted by large commercial interests.
I am. I am also thinking of users. I have come in recent
contact with a large number of Linux afficianados at my new job, and
while they like Linux, they are nowhere near as sold on the fanatical
adherence to free software only as most debian developers are.
I suspect that that is a more likely model for our user base
than a GNU, umm, adherent.
Raul> Right now, we have a tradition of putting contrib on our
Raul> official disk set. Which is fine. But we also have a
Raul> tradition of >>not allowing a disk set which consists of DFSG
Raul> only software to be called official<<.
Raul> You call that technical excellence? You call a course which
Raul> would allow deviation from this tradition fanaticism?
Yes, and yes.
Raul> Why?
I would rather, in the spririt of the social contract, look at
the user base, with the empasis being on free software, but being
realistic enough to acknowledge what our users are.
The solution posited here of letting the packaging system
allow users to have a fully free system and not see any references to
non-free software, and letting this be the default, should address
most of the we shall have a free system issue.
However, letting our other users opt to have non-fee software
equally is following the socal contract.
But mostly I am against coercing dependencies to fit our
preferences, rather than follow what the natural dictates of the
relationship are.
Raul> I think that's much better than creating a "Maybe-Suggests:"
Raul> and stuffing non-free references into the DFSG packages.
If the relationship exists, and is real, that is the only
right thing to do. And letting the packaging system listen to the
users dictates means that users wanting only a free system shall see
no difference.
>>
>> If the references are never displayed *to people who dio not
>> want* tham, why is that so bad? And why are we going through hoops to
>> impose the religion on everyone else as well?
Raul> What do you mean by "display"? You want to chain people to dselect?
This is unworthy of you. I never mentioned dselect, though it
is currently the official (and only) user interface to package
selection, This would equally apply to any descendant or alternate.
I have gotten used to using apt-cache search <blah>, or dpkg
-s, to look at package descriptions. Both could follow do not display
missing/undesirable heirarchies directives to massage the display
(this could take a little work, but so would anything to implement
what you seem to want).
Raul> Simple is good.
Correct is better.
manoj
--
As he had feared, his orders had been forgotten and everyone had
brought the potato salad.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: