> On Sep 14, 2019, at 02:15, Pierre-Elliott Bécue <p...@debian.org> wrote: > >> Does this also imply we are reverting the GR on non-free sections? >> >> https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 >> >> Yao Wei > > I have a clear doubt about your understanding of my email. > > Can you develop your point ? >
That was my random thought: If we cannot use non-free software for Debian packaging, we cannot naturally install what we pack to examine the package. Therefore I thought the existence of non-free section is probably doomed. But since non-free section is not part of Debian per DSC §5, therefore that's not so related here. Sorry for confusion, and I will try communicating carefully. The usage of non-free tools for packaging should be okay because we "can" make free software out of non-free tools, though some would think we should use free tools only to build a free society. I believe more in harmony that the world of free software and non-free software should be able to co-exist. This should be a philosophy question on the position of Debian, about whether Debian is completely non-free exclusive in every way (and whether the existence of non-free section should be challenged again). However, on the choice of VCS, I think we can REQUIRE Salsa to be on the Vcs-Git and make Vcs-Git to be mandatory except for valid reasons. Developers should be free to mirror their repository from the service they would like to, but they should be two-way synchronized between Salsa and the service. If it is possible, I'd like to propose putting multiple Vcs-Git URLs to indicate mirrors. That could also answer the issue that some people prefer free services instead of non-free service used by maintainer, and can come in handy in case if Salsa is down. Yao Wei, still trying to clear my thoughts and find a place to stand. (Sent from a phone, sorry for HTML email.)
