[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A Compromise Proposal on GR: Remove non-free



** On Jun 11, John Goerzen scribbled:
> grendel@vip.net.pl (Marek Habersack) writes:
> 
> > That would be acceptable, but I see just two points. First is a technical
> > one:
> > 
> >  - if a package is fetched from a site outside of the Debian control, the
> >    Debian project cannot guarantee the quality of service, because it cannot
> >    guarantee the availability of exactly that version of the software in
> >    question. It may well happen that the software will have been released in
> >    a new version, with the older one removed from the archives, while the
> >    Debian package still needs the older one. This, of course, applies to the
> >    network installation (but probably at least half of Debian installations
> >    is done off the net)
> 
> This is a question.  It can be partially remedied with wildcards.  You
> might note that FreeBSD's ports system works in this way, and that is
> the primary way that they distribute packages not part of the standard
> system (which is much smaller than ours).
Yes, that's correct. But their system is quite clumsy. The Debian tools may
provide for better management than that, I suppose. Perhaps an "always
valid" source list could be employed here together with a modification of
apt that would allow it to use a remote sources.list? Imagine such
situation: people maintaining the non-free wrappers are obligated to make
sure that this hypothetical remote sources.list contains a valid URL for the
source of their package and then the Debian build tools use apt-get to get
the source of the package the wrapper needs from the indicated location?
What do you think about it?

> > Second is political (and is my pure assumption):
> > 
> >  - the proponents of removal of the non-free software will probably argue
> >    that if your proposal is accepted, the non-free software would still be
> >    associated with Debian...
> 
> I have already indicated that this solution would be acceptable to me.
Yes, I haven't read your other posts before writing the above. Please ignore
the above statement, I withdraw it.

marek

Attachment: pgp0NLdgdX9V_.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: