Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages
in main"):
> I had previously assumed that we weren't worrying too much about issues
> like that because the end-user had to have explicitly enabled the non-free
> repository to have any of the non-free packages become candidates, and
> that (having enabled that repository) they were requesting the best
> possible dependency resolution including the non-free repository. (This
> is, to a large extent, exactly the point of contention in the Policy bugs
> that I'm escalating.)
I think this is a real problem. In general people sometimes find that
they need to enable non-free for some particular reason (perhaps even
just too make their nic work or something). That shouldn't mean
that their system becomes tainted willy-nily with non-free stuff.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
