Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:17:13AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapot? : > > > I asked you a question which could be answered quite simply by producing > > > one of those ways. Go on. It's my honest belief that it can't be done > > > correctly; I'm open to hearing ways in which I'm wrong. > > > > Instead of having a package the binary and install it, we can surely > > have the package that set up a directory in /usr/src with everything > > needed to be build the debian package + a script in /usr/bin that > > would create the package and install effectively (named after the > > installer package name, for instance). > > > > There's no reason when you install an "installer" to have a software > > installed, apart from the installer itself. You should have a tool > > that permits you to install the software and that's what I'm proposing. > > > > If you remove the installer, all these files would be removed, whatever > > the fact you may have build and installed the non-free software or > > not. > > > > I think it's a pretty easy solution to have something clean. > > I think that's a step backwards. In particular, it's now impossible to > have an installer package which Provides: a virtual package in a > sensible way;
Which "virtual package"? The package that will be built will be a completely normal package. > it introduces an extra manual step into the sequence, and to be > honest I don't see many advantages over just installing the software > in /usr/local and managing it with stow. I already listed theses advantages previously. That the origin of the thread. > > > > Would it be acceptable to fill a bug against each installer that do > > > > not build a proper debian package when installing non-free software, > > > > as long as a technical solution is provided? > > > > > > I guess so, if the technical solution is correct. Severity something > > > less than release-critical, though. > > > > Is this technical solution acceptable for you? > > I think if you want to do your installer packages this way then that's > fine, but I would disagree with making everybody do it. *shrug* You're funny. 1. Theorical proposal: you replied that you need a technical proposal 2. Technical proposal: you reply that you do not agree with the theorical proposal. In my previous mail, I suspected you to be strangely obstructive. It's no longer a suspicion to my eyes and I strangely do not see any argument ('go make your own GNU/Linux distro', what an interesting proposal when discussing about how Debian works!). Beside from that, I have a strange sensation when I see you telling that it's fine that a package in contrib basically contains a non-free software* and in the same time claiming that GFDLed software are very evil in regards of freedom. * No, it's not a dependancy, it does not need any other debian package to install the software, it does install the software during the installer package installation. A pity. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english