Mike O'Connor <s...@debian.org> writes: > On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:41:00 -0500, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> > wrote: >> On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 04:53:46 am Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >> > If you have non-free enabled and install a package from main, it should >> > install the dependencies from main. So you should have e.g. "rar | >> > rar-nonfree" instead of the other way round. >> >> Why? If the user has made the choice to use non-free and the maintainer >> concludes that's a more technically capable solution for users that choose >> to >> use it, why should the project raise barriers to that choice? >> > > To me, this particualar case is one where we should definitely not be > choosing a non-free version by default, as using the non-free version > actually puts a financial burden on the user. Just becaause the user > decided that he wants to enable non-free so he can install sun-java6, > doesn't mean we should assume he is willing to buy a license for rar.
I wonder what the default behaviour would be if you pin non-free below main. Would apt/aptitude/... then prefer the main alternatives because of the higher pin? MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bp1bvrgo.fsf@frosties.localnet