On 2/28/06, Anthony Towns <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay, so I'll vote against both these.
Understood. But I'd appreciate it if you could refine your arguments some more: > After the discussions so far, I'm inclined towards the following two views > of our policy on this: > > * first, that dependencies are one way -- programs depend on > libraries, but libraries don't depend on the programs that use > them; I don't think that can really be true in the general case. For example, we have the "base system" where pretty much everything in base has a mutual dependency on pretty much everything else in base. > * and second, that programs that only operate when interacting with > non-free programs, whether over the net or via data files, aren't > considered to depend on those non-free programs. The issue I thought was important in the context of ndiswrapper was: what software has to be installed on the debian system for people to use ndiswrapper? I'm not sure that this general statement really refutes that position. > That means that: > > (a) libraries that aren't used by any DFSG-free programs are okay > for main, so packages like libamstd-ruby1.8 that provide a library > that no package happens to use are still fine If the issue is "what needs to be installed for people to use libamstd-ruby1.8 the way it's typically used" would there be any missing packages? > (b) ndiswrapper is okay for main (non-free drivers depend on it, and > there are no free packages that depend on it, but it does not depend > on anything non-free) I'm not saying you're wrong here, but I think we should find better examples where the "what needs to be installed" logic falls down, if we're going to go this route. > (c) free viewers/players for proprietary formats (Word documents, > mp3 players, etc) are okay for main While this is true, I you're talking about content which can be fetched by any user on a typical system. There's no need for the system administrator to install anything here. > (d) free clients for proprietary protocols (for which there is no > free server) are okay for main Again, in the typical case there's no need for the administrator to install anything. > All of which are (ttbomk) existing practice. I agree, and I think you're drawing the line in an appropriate place, for the most part. But I think this case -- <<where root privileges are needed, in order to install non-free software, in order to make the package work the way that people typically think of as using it>>... I think this case is on the wrong side of that line. > It would be consistent to invert either principle; but I don't think it > would be practical to remove packages that would be classified under > either (a) or (c) from main, and I think the relationship between (a) > and (b) and (c) and (d) are pretty strong, to the point I can't really > see why it would be fair to drop one without also dropping the other. Could you comment directly on the issue I've <<bracketed>> above? Thanks, -- Raul
