On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:17:13AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapot? : > > I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing > > one of those ways. Go on. It's my honest belief that it can't be done > > correctly; I'm open to hearing ways in which I'm wrong. > > Instead of having a package the binary and install it, we can surely > have the package that set up a directory in /usr/src with everything > needed to be build the debian package + a script in /usr/bin that > would create the package and install effectively (named after the > installer package name, for instance). > > There's no reason when you install an "installer" to have a software > installed, apart from the installer itself. You should have a tool > that permits you to install the software and that's what I'm proposing. > > If you remove the installer, all these files would be removed, whatever > the fact you may have build and installed the non-free software or > not. > > I think it's a pretty easy solution to have something clean.
I think that's a step backwards. In particular, it's now impossible to have an installer package which Provides: a virtual package in a sensible way; it introduces an extra manual step into the sequence, and to be honest I don't see many advantages over just installing the software in /usr/local and managing it with stow. But I guess some people might like it. > > > Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do > > > not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software, > > > as long as a technical solution is provided? > > > > I guess so, if the technical solution is correct. Severity something > > less than release-critical, though. > > Is this technical solution acceptable for you? I think if you want to do your installer packages this way then that's fine, but I would disagree with making everybody do it. *shrug* Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]