On 01/09/2012 06:38 PM, Anssi Hannula wrote:
On 10.01.2012 01:30, David Walser wrote:
That's the absolute last thing I want to see happen. It's one of the reasons
Fedora and others that do that are not viable options for a lot
of non-technical users, and it just makes it so you have to jump through a lot
of extra hoops just to have a reasonably working system
I'm absolutely fine with either moving codecs to core or tainted, as
long as we are at least somewhat consistent in what is in core and what
is in tainted.
I agree with both of you, but the problem is the difference between
non-free and tainted. Unfortunately, both are required for a
"reasonably working system". But in the case of nonfree, it's just a
matter of us internally getting past the "purity of the media" issue.
In the case of tainted, there are legal issues.
I think that the ultimate solution is going to have to be integrated
support in the installer allowing the user to hook up either nonfree,
tainted, or both, just by answering a simple prompt. The mirror
database probably ought to (if it doesn't already) keep track of which
mirrors supply nonfree and tainted (or better still, check at install
time), and customize mirror selection based on the user's response.
For non-network installs, I don't see a way around separate ISOs, at
least for tainted.
