On 14.03.2011 15:30, Tux99 wrote: > > > Quote: Anssi Hannula wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 00:35 >> >> On 14.03.2011 01:01, Tux99 wrote: >>> >>> Personally I also think 'tainted' would be the better choice than >>> 'non-free' since potential patent issues are a more serious concern >>> than a >>> non-FOSS license, but tbh I think both choices are far from ideal, >>> I >>> believe the only really clean solution would be to create a >>> 'tainted+non-free' repo just like PLF has. >> >> One option would be to add it to "tainted", but have it require a >> dummy >> metapackage from "non-free" repository, so that it can be only >> installed >> if non-free media is enabled. It might cause too much confusion, >> though, >> as the error message wouldn't be very clear. > > I agree that the metapackage solution is impractical since it would cause > too much confusion for users.
We could make it Requires: nonfree-repository-required or similar so that the error message would give a better hint of what is wrong. -- Anssi Hannula