Bug#31352: Should be marked as wontfix?
On Jan 7, 2008 6:22 AM, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, blacklisting repositories is not something acceptable. However, before closing this bug, it makes sense to verify that dselect doesn't show packages in Suggests: or Recommends: if they don't exist according to its list of packages. That way, when non-free is not used, non-free packages are not shown, which seems to be the right behaviour. I agree, this is what should be done. But it does not make sense to do it only for dselect. It should be like this for all package managers. -- Besos, Marga -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#31352: Should be marked as wontfix?
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 09:22:52AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008, Christian Perrier wrote: Since the Debian project apparently intends to continue distributing non-free software, should this bug be marked as wontfix? The point is not even wanting to distribute non-free software or not. Even if Debian wasn't distributing non-free software (which is highly debatable), tools have no reason to blacklist repositories that do. Our priorities are our users blah blah blah. Of course, blacklisting repositories is not something acceptable. However, before closing this bug, it makes sense to verify that dselect doesn't show packages in Suggests: or Recommends: if they don't exist according to its list of packages. That way, when non-free is not used, non-free packages are not shown, which seems to be the right behaviour. If it doesn't show packages which it thinks don't exist, what happens when (for example) a package is removed from testing? Instead of showing as unavailable, it'd just be hidden. Unless there's a way of distinguishing between a package that's missing because it's in another repository, and a package that's usually in the same repository but temporarily unavailable, I don't think this is a good idea. Doing this only for recommended/suggested packages sounds okay, but as I understand it there's no way of telling whether a package is in non-free unless non-free is actually enabled. -- Benjamin A'Lee :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subvert Technologies :: http://subvert.org.uk/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#31352: Should be marked as wontfix?
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008, Christian Perrier wrote: Since the Debian project apparently intends to continue distributing non-free software, should this bug be marked as wontfix? The point is not even wanting to distribute non-free software or not. Even if Debian wasn't distributing non-free software (which is highly debatable), tools have no reason to blacklist repositories that do. Our priorities are our users blah blah blah. Of course, blacklisting repositories is not something acceptable. However, before closing this bug, it makes sense to verify that dselect doesn't show packages in Suggests: or Recommends: if they don't exist according to its list of packages. That way, when non-free is not used, non-free packages are not shown, which seems to be the right behaviour. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Bug#31352: Should be marked as wontfix?
Package: dpkg Followup-For: Bug #31352 Since the Debian project apparently intends to continue distributing non-free software, should this bug be marked as wontfix? Added to this is the fact that an APT frontend generally makes no assumptions about whether something is free or not (consider a third-party repository, which may contain non-free packages but not conform to the Debian archive's naming convention), and also the fact that dselect just isn't very widely used any more anyway. -- Benjamin A'Lee :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subvert Technologies :: http://subvert.org.uk/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#31352: Should be marked as wontfix?
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008, Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: Package: dpkg Followup-For: Bug #31352 Since the Debian project apparently intends to continue distributing non-free software, should this bug be marked as wontfix? Added to this is the fact that an APT frontend generally makes no assumptions about whether something is free or not (consider a third-party repository, which may contain non-free packages but not conform to the Debian archive's naming convention), and also the fact that dselect just isn't very widely used any more anyway. I'm not sure it needs a wontfix though. I see two answers to this bug: - make sure that unknown packages are not displayed as Recommends/Suggests in dselect. That way when non-free is disabled, the user doesn't see them. - make sure that the Enhances: field is properly supported by dselect so that packages can use a reversed relationship to avoid speaking of the non-free part within the free part Although I agree that it's largely irrelevant to focus on dselect nowadays. The same principle should be used in aptitude and apt for instance. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
