2010/12/10 Buchan Milne <[email protected]>: > > easyurpmi should not be necessary. Users should not be expected to paste > random commands from random sites into a root shell.
Yes, if urpmi were able to switch from one mirror to another one in case of any failures or at will of the user if the automatically selected mirror is too slow. An issue discussed often enough since Mandriva days (also reported as bug). Until this is not solved users are sometimes (in germany more often than "some times") forced to use such tools like easyurpmi or smarturpmi. > Alternatively, the whole dichotomy that necessitated contributors to create a > separate project should be addressed differently, but keeping the packages > integrated into the distribution, but avoiding legal issues by making it easy > for entities hosting the files to avoid infringement. Isn't this what this whole discussion is about? There ARE legal issues with some software users regard as "must have". Now, how do you avoid these issues? This is the big question we have been talking about for many days. >> Many if not all of which were in PLF for patent reasons, according to >> the package description. >> Which brings up a difference of PLF packages : the PLF description >> usually ends with a line specifying why they are there. (At least >> packages destined for Mandriva users.) > > Search for plf in e.g. http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi- > bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/ffmpeg/current/SPECS/ffmpeg.spec?revision=612098&view=markup Ah, does that search really give results? It should not because Mandriva always stated (officially) that they have nothing to do with PLF. I remember discussions where Mandriva representatives said that Mandriva can not acknowledge PLF's existance. BTW: there are important differences between Mandriva packages and those built by PLF. Especially such as mplayer and vlc, with reasons. -- wobo
