Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris> Note that the common element of both proposals is that
> Chris> someone who has non-free packages in her package list will
> Chris> see them, and someone who doesn't won't. This really seems
> Chris> like the best approach all 'round.
[snip]
> I am slightly dismayed by some of the proposals in this
> thread, which would have us bury all references to software that does
> not meet our guideline somewhere in the documentation which is ot
> accesible prior to installation, and not during the install.
Well, in the case of my package where I removed the Suggests:
non-free-pkg, I put a mention of the non-free package in the package
description, which *is* visible without an install. The only
difference is that dselect will no longer pop up to specifically
remind you that you don't have this non-free package installed.
> Freedom of software should come on its merits, not because on
> Debian it is hard to find good (but non-free) software.
> Not quite censorship, but definitely freedom through obscurity.
Yes, I argued exactly the same point when this thread came up before
(on -private, where it never belonged, imo). But note that both of
the proposals I mentioned would solve this quite handily -- the
information would be available to anyone who has the non-free package
sources in her package list, and only be hidden to those who
(deliberately, one assumes) don't have a source of non-free packages
listed.
This seems to me to make sense in any case, since there's not much
point in suggesting a package which isn't available. It's a bit hard
to install a non-free package if you don't have a source for non-free
packages! :-)
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
