> On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 03:47:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Suppose we were to have four distributions, instead of three: non-free, > > contrib, main and gpl-only. gpl-only being that subset of main which is > > gpl-compatible. > If we create a gpl-compatible, it will be for developers more than > end users. Which means that for gpl-compatible the source packages > are much more interesting than the binary .deb files. So I don't > see that this should be an issue there.
libfoo-dev binary packages would be relevent, I'd think, and for reference
there are a number of things that suggest them. *shrug*
> Once again: why are we talking about making our package meta-data
> specification more complicated to support a small subset of non-free
> packages?
Eh? The only `specification' change that I'd even vaguely want would be
an addition to the Packaging Manual section 8.2 something like:
`Suggests'
This is used to declare that one package may be more useful with
one or more others. Using this field tells the packaging system
and the user that the listed packages are be related to this one
and can perhaps enhance its usefulness, but that installing this
one without them is perfectly reasonable.
* `dselect' will offer [available] sugg[e]sted packages to the
system administrator when they select the suggesting package,
but the default is not to install the suggested package.
As far as `Enhances:' goes, it would be useful even just within main, and
seems a useful addition to our package meta-data in its own right.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
pgpub7wqtvYPm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
