Re: A Compromise Proposal on GR: Remove non-free
Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> On 10 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > Bolan Meek <Bolan.Meek@wcom.com> writes:
> >
> > > I suggest that the non-free packages be replaced by installer
> > > assistants,
> >
> > I would support such a solution as a compromise, and in fact, have
> > already indicated such. As long as Debian does not distribute the
> > non-free code itself.
>
> So then users would have no idea that what they are installing
> is non-free unless we somehow require the installers say something
> about it.
I would think that messages like this would be at the discretion of
the respective maintainers of each installer-package. Of course,
there _could_ be a policy about it...
> We then also have debian packages that depend on things
> outside of Debian's resources.
What I am thinking is that _strictly_ speaking, an installer
would not _depend_, as far as Debian is concerned, on anything
outside of Debian, it would merely be performing a service, or
set of services, for the user, much like a web-browser
distributed by Debian doesn't _depend_, as far as Debian is
concerned, on the web-sites accessed through it. Or an expect
script, as far as Debian is concerned, doesn't depend, on anything
outside of Debian. If whatever is on the "other end" of the
expect script doesn't work, it's not the fault of the expect
script, that is _if_ the expect script is doing what _it_ is
supposed to do.
I think of this more as adding a layer of abstraction between Debian
and the non-free software via a totally free installer that automates
a set of tasks.
> If one of these 'installer' packages ends up w/ an RC bug,
> what do we do?
If a given installer did not _actually_ perform the steps needed
to do what it was supposed to do, then it would be a bug. If it is
RC, then it doesn't get included in the affected release.
> If they have to be different then perhaps we would
> want to put them into their own section, say.. 'non-free-installers',
> and force everyone to update their sources.list files.
I think 'extra' would be good enough.
> It sounds like all you object to is the non-free files being
> on Debian servers.
I personally don't, but the proponents of the resolution in question
do. I'm offering a way to support those who use Debian who also
use non-free software.
> Perhaps a better way to handle this would be to
> work one-by-one on replacing the packages with installer packages
> that go out elsewhere to grab the actual files to install.
Hmmm. That seems like a good idea.
> I suspect this would become rather painful to do.
Like compiling a custom kernel is a painful thing to do? Really,
the package maintainers -presumably, the same as are now maintaining
the binary non-free packages- would be crafting a script to aid/
automate for the user to do what they themselves are doing now
to create the binary packages. I presume that it wouldn't be
more painful for the maintainer, and would certainly give the
user an opportunity to see all that needs to be done to download,
compile if necessary, install and configure a software package.
> I also do not see that it would be worth it. All we've done (hopefully) is
> put the actual files used to install non-free packages outside of
> Debian's control. Writing such installers is time spent that could
> be spent on better things to benefit the free software community.
Well, some maintainers find it worth their while to work on the non-free
packages that currently exist. They volunteer for it: no-one makes
them do it. The same thing, "... time spent that could be spent on
better things...", could be said of their efforts as well.
But really, "Debian" does not spend the time of the developers; they
spend their own time.
> I think the downsides to this out-weight the political
> advantage of being able to claim Debian doesn't have any technical
> non-free stuff on its servers.
I think the only downsides to this are for those who don't have
flat-rate
access to the net, but I'm presuming that someone can & will supply
a CD (set) with non-free source & binary-only packages to be used by
the installers in lieu of economical Internet access.
I also think that those who are for the resolution in question -I'm not,
but if it passes, I won't be hurt- don't want merely to _claim_ to not
have non-free stuff, but actually want to not _have_ non-free stuff,
on Debian servers.
>
> Stephen
Reply to: