Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-08 Thread Ian Jackson
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch"): > Could you explain why you want to do this with metapackages, rather than > extending the definition of an archive section so that non-free and > contrib may be more finely divided up? The various implementation > p

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-07 Thread Paul Wise
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > A package can only be in a single section. That wouldn't prevent adding subsetted Packages files: deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ unstable main non-free/firmware non-free/docs Types: deb URIs: http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ Suites:

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-07 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
]] Sean Whitton > Could you explain why you want to do this with metapackages, rather than > extending the definition of an archive section so that non-free and > contrib may be more finely divided up? The various implementation > problems that have been raised in this thread are all/mostly due

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-07 Thread Sean Whitton
Dear Ian, On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:48:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > I have a suggestion for how this could be done. > > We give each reason-why-a-package-might-be-nonfree-or-contrib > a name in the package namespace. I'm going to call these packages > antimetapackages. It would be good if

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-07 Thread Ian Jackson
The Wanderer writes ("Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch"): > Can you provide an example of how, under your proposal, someone who > wants to - e.g. - forbid the installation of any nonfree-gfdl-invariant > packages would do so? I don't see any way to accomplish that based on >

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-07 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:53:34PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > I think Debian has better things to do than working on fine grained control > over non-free stuff. Obviously anybody is free to work on this, but I dont > think we should make our repositories, packages, policies and workflow s >

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-07 Thread Adam Borowski
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:40:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Adam Borowski writes ("Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch"): > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:48:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > We give each reason-why-a-package-might-be-nonfree-or-contrib > > >

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-07 Thread The Wanderer
On 2017-03-07 at 11:40, Ian Jackson wrote: > Adam Borowski writes ("Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch"): > >> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:48:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: >> >>> I have a suggestion for how this could be done. >>> >>> We giv

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-07 Thread Holger Levsen
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:40:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: [...] > I would like to shelve this suggestion. The concept of > antimetapackages can certainly be used this way from a technical point > of view, but I think the goal there is controversial. Maintainers of > packages currently in

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-07 Thread Ian Jackson
Adam Borowski writes ("Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch"): > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:48:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I have a suggestion for how this could be done. > > > > We give each reason-why-a-package-might-be-nonfree-or-contrib > > a name in the

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-07 Thread Adam Borowski
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:48:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > I have a suggestion for how this could be done. > > We give each reason-why-a-package-might-be-nonfree-or-contrib > a name in the package namespace. I'm going to call these packages > antimetapackages. > > Each package in non-free

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-07 Thread Ian Jackson
Philip Hands writes ("Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch"): > I presume this issue arises because people (myself included) dislike the > fact that in order to install some RFCs and/or GNU documentation one has > to flick a switch that also opens the door to some thoroughly >

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-06 Thread Luca Capello
Hi there, first of all, thanks Simon for your work. On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 17:33:44 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > Iustin Pop wrote: > > Could you try to explain to me why one would need the same liberties for > > source code and standard documents? > > Among many other reasons: Thanks Josh for

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-06 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 05:58:02PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > I presume this issue arises because people (myself included) dislike the > fact that in order to install some RFCs and/or GNU documentation one has > to flick a switch that also opens the door to some thoroughly > proprietary

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-06 Thread Philip Hands
Josh Triplett writes: > Iustin Pop wrote: >> On 2017-03-05 12:41:18, Ben Finney wrote: >> > Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes: >> > > I'd like to see a compromise in the DFSG like #4 for standards to >> > > allow their inclusion in Debian when their license

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-05 Thread Josh Triplett
Iustin Pop wrote: > On 2017-03-05 12:41:18, Ben Finney wrote: > > Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes: > > > I'd like to see a compromise in the DFSG like #4 for standards to > > > allow their inclusion in Debian when their license at least allows > > > modification when changing the

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-05 Thread Iustin Pop
On 2017-03-05 12:41:18, Ben Finney wrote: > Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes: > > I'd like to see a compromise in the DFSG like #4 for standards to > > allow their inclusion in Debian when their license at least allows > > modification when changing the name or namespace for

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-05 Thread Bastien Roucaries
Le 4 mars 2017 10:13:21 GMT+01:00, Simon Josefsson a écrit : >Hi all, > >I have searched for non-free licensed IETF RFCs in the archive and >found >the files below in the stretch suite. Compare earlier work here [1]. > >I know this is late in the release cycle, but I

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-04 Thread Ben Finney
Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes: > On 03/04/2017 10:13 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > I have searched for non-free licensed IETF RFCs in the archive and > > found the files below in the stretch suite. Compare earlier work > > here [1]. > > Instead of trying to get standards

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-04 Thread Simon Josefsson
Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes: > On 03/04/2017 10:13 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> I have searched for non-free licensed IETF RFCs in the archive and found >> the files below in the stretch suite. Compare earlier work here [1]. > > Instead of trying to get standards documents

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

2017-03-04 Thread Sebastiaan Couwenberg
On 03/04/2017 10:13 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote: > I have searched for non-free licensed IETF RFCs in the archive and found > the files below in the stretch suite. Compare earlier work here [1]. Instead of trying to get standards documents out of Debian, I'd rather see effort invested in working