On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:05:16AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:07:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > I don't think that the basis for a package's inclusion in main should be the > > packaging in main of appropriate content. > > The Debian Policy says something pretty close to that, in my view. > > 2.2.1 The main section > > Every package in main and non-US/main must comply with the DFSG (Debian > Free Software Guidelines). > > In addition, the packages in main > > * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or > execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends",
I presume this condition is the basis for your view. I concur, but with reservations when it comes to content, because there is a far wider range of potential bitstreams which would allow the program to operate. > OTOH, as you're sure to note, an easy way around this is that a package can > be completely useless in main as long as what it depends on isn't a > package. Maybe that *was* your point. Not exactly. I'm not a fan of useless software on the whole, so I don't believe that your work-around is a winner. I prefer to fall back on the last sentence of the first clause of the social contract: "We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component.". Providing a piece of software which can only use non-free content is "requiring the use of a non-free component", IMO. > > That would be a waste of archive resources. > > Er, before heading down this road, I think you should attempt an objective > demonstration that we seem to give a damn about wasting archive resources > in the first place. We don't give a damn? That's a pity. - Matt