On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:26:37PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote: > > 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. > > I still fail to see why. How can it be more problematic to install alternative > B if (and only if) alternative A is not installable? I don't think that a user > expects that APT ignores or-groups and just always only works with the first > package in the or-group and fails if it doesn't work out with it.
The problem is not the user expectation in this case. Users seldom looks at all the Depends: field of packages beofre upgraidng them. The problem is the expectation of the developers that wrote the Depends line: they expected that the non-free or-group would not replace the free group unless the user installed the non-free alternative before. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101121201738.gi16...@yellowpig
