On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:44:43PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > if you intend to reply to this subthread, please use the 587279 bug.
> On Mittwoch, 17. November 2010, Bill Allombert wrote: > > I do not think it is correct to ever upgrade a free package to a non-free > > one. Now, apt is not at fault, the problem rather lie in a strange > > interpretation of policy 2.1.2 by some developers. But we cannot ignore the > 2.2.1 > > issue either. > > No. The "problem" lies in people adding non-free and contrib to their > sources. I disagree. I put non-free in my source.list so that 'apt-cache show' displays the non-free packages, not to get any of them installed. This is important for reporting bugs against non-free packages, and not breaking them inadvertently. > So I think apt is actually right in those cases to upgrade to a non-free > alternative. It's the users choice. There are a variety of licenses in non-free and a user (or their lawyers) can be fine with some of them but not all. The choice of non-free packages installed should remain with the users. Now apt is just a tool and I do not ask apt to be aware of non-free. However the change in apt make the non-respect of policy 2.2.1 more problematic. > Bill, so far you're the only one in #587279 objecting to the clarification > making the what-you-call "strange interpretation" crystal clear (and > following the way it was always handled). Nobody in #587279 is saying that the text is ambiguous. This precisely why a policy change was proposed in the first place. (the text I am referring to is "the package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-_main_ package") Cheers, -- Bill. <[email protected]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101119200610.ga16...@yellowpig
