On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Cameron Patrick wrote: > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > | > When your conclusion is at odds with reality you should rethink your > | > argument... if Debian was to start classifying packages based on > | > the probable or possible results of using the package, instead of > | > the code in the package itself, contrib would disappear and a case > | > could be made to place all editors in non-free because they can be > | > used to create non-free stuff. > | > | Ah, reductio ad absurdum. Such a wonderful means of demonstrating that you > | can't think up a decent argument, so you'll take something to it's illogical > | extreme to try and scare some people. > > Don't attack reductio ad absurdum, attack the utter non-sequiturs in the > original post. If a package's postinst or main goal is to fetch some > non-free piece of software, that is by no means the "probable or > possible" results of using the package, it is the only useful result of > using the package as it is intended to be used. A piece of software > designed /only/ to fetch and install some non-free software is > significantly different to the case of e.g. an editor which can be used > to write non-free software or a generalised software installer (like > dpkg) which can potentially be used to install non-free software.
Exactly. What if a generalised DFSG-free software installer used a separate config file to download, debianize (using dh_make templates), then install the resulting package (most of it non-free because such a scheme should not be necessary for free stuff)... imo, the installer would go in main and the config/templates would go into contrib or non-free. Should installers be forced into non-free just because they haven't progressed to the point of being generalised yet? - Bruce