Am 17.03.2011 09:14, schrieb Samuel Verschelde:
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 21:30:05, Michael Scherer a écrit :
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 20:34 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21
Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted stuff,
but do care about free licenses and do care about what it bring to
them.
I do. Stormi do ( or seems to do ). And I think that given we decided
to
split PLF for that precise reason, there is more than 2 of us to care.
Putting tainted packages in nonfree just causes more confusion
IMHO.
As much as the reverse, it all depends on what you tell to people
about
the repository, what they expect and what you prefer to highlight.
That's exactly why I suggested earlier in this thread that we need an
additional repo for 'tainted+non-free' packages, that's the only solution
that would satisfy every preference people might have and at the same
time make things clear for everyone (packagers, mirror maintainers,
users).
Instead of moving stuff in non-free, you move them in non-free +
tainted. That just bring more headaches, and more complexity.
That's not a solution.
Well, that would be a real solution if we really wanted to flag those packages
both as tainted and as non-free, as some people give more importance to the
fact that it is tainted and others to the fact that it is non-free.
For now, I would propose either to put that package in non-free, explain to
users that non-free packages may be tainted too, and envision after Mageia 1
to add a new media if the current solution really doesn't work, and maybe
require a meta-package from tainted OR put it in tainted, explain that
tainted can contain non-free packages, and require a dummy package from non-
free, as Anssi proposed (on a second thought, I think that second option is
better).
Can we reach a decision ? (add this question to the next packagers meeting ?)
*bump*
As there was no decision reached, not even a concensus, how do we proceed now?
As there is the next package (HandBrake) which also falls under both
categories, tainted and non-free.
The option of moving such packages to non-free, and requiring a package from
tainted (or vice-versa)
which explains shortly via a README.urpmi about the problem, and to enable the
missing repo,
sounds not that bad. (If you really want to go that far.)
Regards
