Philippe Cerfon: > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Christian PERRIER <bubu...@debian.org> wrote: >> Discussing infrastructure changes like what you're proposing (which I >> have no advice about) should usually be done through our mailing >> lists, > Which one would be the appropriate list? > > I thought general would fit, as it likely affects multiple packages > and infrastructure systems form Debian. > Anyway, I don't mind to forward this to some list as well. > > Thanks, > Philippe. >
Your second item has been brought up before with different focus/rationale/purpose. At least I remember there being an interest in splitting "non-free" into "non-free/firmware" vs. various other non-free sub components. Mind you, its primary goal was not to address "source vs. no-source", but it is the closest related idea I could think of. Sadly, I don't have a reference ready to backup my memory. On your first item, I would have to agree with Christian. It is not actionable and much less by Debian. At best we could stop packaging such software or disabling such features, but both have their disadvantages: * Even if we stop shipping them, people will still download them. Except your average user will probably be worse off because most of them do not verify their downloads. * If we disable the functionality, we would "cripple" the software to many people. If this annoys people, we will end up in a situation where people will advise /against/ using the Debian package because it is "crippled", which leads to the situation above. Or we could get badly unpopular with upstream (see the "Debian vs. Ruby" issue from a couple of years ago). Thanks, ~Niels
