Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [140803 04:00]: > As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question > with the following ballot options: > > A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in > main > B non-free packages should always be

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 07:56:41PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in > main > B non-free packages should always be prohibited in package dependencies for > main > FD I vote: B A FD. (Rationale: https://lists.debian.or

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

On Sat, 02 Aug 2014, Steve Langasek wrote: > As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question > with the following ballot options: > > A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in > main > B non-free packages should always be prohibited

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes"): > As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question > with the following ballot options: > > A non-free packages as non-default alte

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

Steve Langasek writes: > As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question > with the following ballot options: > > A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in > main > B non-free packages should always be prohibited in package depende

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

Steve Langasek writes: > As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question > with the following ballot options: > > A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in > main > B non-free packages should always be prohibited in package depende

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

Steve Langasek writes: > As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this > question with the following ballot options: > A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in > main > B non-free packages should always be prohibited in package dependen

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 07:56:41PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question > with the following ballot options: > A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in > main > B non-free packages should a

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question with the following ballot options: A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in main B non-free packages should always be prohibited in package dependencies for main FD Whereas: 1

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: counterargument

> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes: Ian> And from a practical point of view, I would prefer to make a Ian> choice that significantly eases collaboration with the GNU Ian> Project to one that slightly eases collaboration with Ian> proprietary software vendors. The more interesting

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: counterargument

I wrote: > In particular, I think Steve's example is one where we should > certainly not compromise our principles just because some proprietary > software distributors are being uncooperative. Our political > opponents, with whom we are making a practical compromise, are giving > those of us who

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: counterargument

Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: counterargument"): > Sorry for the delays in writing this up. ... > I believe the *spirit* of the policy requirement is twofold: I won't repeat myself too much, but as I have said I t

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: counterargument

Sorry for the delays in writing this up. Of the two options presented at , I am unequivocally in favor of option A and

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

forward 681419 http://git.donarmstrong.com/?p=debian-ctte.git;a=blob;f=681419_free_non_free_dependencies/681419_free_non_free_dependencies.org thanks I've been going through and doing summaries for the current status of the CTTE bugs; this is my understanding of where we are for 681419: * Issue

Re: Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:22:13PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on > non-free packages in main"): > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 09:59:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > How about instead we thi

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main"): > Ian Jackson writes: > > Would we also want to do something to avoid the package managers > > complaining about nonexistent virtual packages ? I guess they are > > alread

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Ian Jackson writes: > Do we know what proportion of the existing references out of main into > non-free/contrib could be done this way ? I'm not sure; we'd have to check. However, it seems like it should handle all of them except any that would need a versioned dependency. > That would at leas

Re: Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Goswin von Brederlow writes: > Currently the repository only has 2 types in the Release file: Automatic > yes and no. Maybe it is time to add a third that would cause frontends to > avoid installing any new package of that type and ask before installing > if they must to resolve some dependency c

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main"): > Well, if we want to go this route, we could require use of a virtual > package in all cases like this. Then foo and foo-nonfree would both > Provide: foo (and probably Conflicts: foo),

Re: Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main"): > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 09:59:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > How about instead we think about what the real issue is. The FSF's > > view AIUI is that they

Re: Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 05:09:12PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote: > Ian Jackson writes: > > > I think this is a real problem. In general people sometimes find that > > they need to enable non-free for some particular reason (perhaps even > > just too make their nic work or something). That shouldn

Re: Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 09:59:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Michael Gilbert writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free > packages in main"): > > Perhaps the motivation behind this centers around FSF expectations on > > Debian's handling

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Ian Jackson writes: > I think this is a real problem. In general people sometimes find that > they need to enable non-free for some particular reason (perhaps even > just too make their nic work or something). That shouldn't mean > that their system becomes tainted willy-nily with non-free stu

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 02:46:48PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Don Armstrong writes: > > > For example, if foo conflicted with baz, but foo-nonfree did not > > > and baz was installed, foo-nonfree could be installed in > > > preference to foo without

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Ian Jackson writes: > It seems to me that there are two possible ways to do this: > - Somehow change the package metatdata so that the reference to the >non-free package lives in the non-free repo. > - Change the packager UI, websites, etc. which interpret this data >for users to not s

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main"): > I had previously assumed that we weren't worrying too much about issues > like that because the end-user had to have explicitly enabled the non-free > repository to have any

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Russ Allbery wrote: > Don Armstrong writes: > > For example, if foo conflicted with baz, but foo-nonfree did not > > and baz was installed, foo-nonfree could be installed in > > preference to foo without the user specifically asking for > > foo-nonfree. > > It seems like it w

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Michael Gilbert writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main"): > Perhaps the motivation behind this centers around FSF expectations on > Debian's handling of non-free? If that is the case, wouldn't this > discussion be more appropria

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Don Armstrong writes: > I personally believe this is acceptable, but only with the following > caveat: under no circumstances should foo-nonfree be automatically > pulled in. [That is, there cannot be a conflicts or similar arrangement > where the package resolver seeks to pull in foo-nonfree to

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Russ Allbery wrote: > The question at issue in these bugs is whether it is permissible for > a package in main to declare a non-default alternative dependency on > a package in non-free. In other words, may a package in main have a > dependency of: > > Depends: foo | foo-

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Bdale Garbee wrote: > Russ Allbery writes: > >> The question at issue in these bugs is whether it is permissible for >> a package in main to declare a non-default alternative dependency on >> a package in non-free. In other words, may a package in main have a >> d

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Russ Allbery writes: > The question at issue in these bugs is whether it is permissible for > a package in main to declare a non-default alternative dependency on > a package in non-free. In other words, may a package in main have a > dependency of: > > Depends: foo | foo-nonfree Yes, of co

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Package: tech-ctte Severity: normal As a Debian Policy delegate, I'm delegating to the Technical Committee the resolution of bugs #587279 and #616462. The current Policy wording is: In addition, the packages in main * must not require or recommend a package outside of main for c