Christian Lohmaier <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Wolfgang, *, > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Wolfgang Bornath <[email protected]> > wrote: >> [...] >> After reading all arguments again I must confess that I changed my >> opinion: Being consequent and following our road we need a >> /tainted-free and a /tainted-nonfree branch. > > I still think this would be a very user-*un*friendly way to handle it. > > You cannot put packages that itself is "free", but depends on > "tainted&nonfree" packages into the "free" repo, since the core repos > need to be self-contained. [...] > Much better would then be to create an "ugly" repo (in the spirit of > gstreamer) that contains the "doesn't fit into the other repos" stuff.
That's just a naming issue then, are you just suggesting to rename the "tainted-nonfree" repository proposal as "ugly"? This crossed my mind too, but the name is less understandable by users not necessarily familiar with the gstreamer naming. If we go for the "tainted + nonfree" way, its definition should be that it contains packages that: (1) are both tainted and not free software or (2) packages having a hard requirement on packages from (1) -- Olivier Blin - blino
