'Twas brillig, and Johnny A. Solbu at 03/10/12 14:01 did gyre and gimble: > On Wednesday 03 October 2012 09:40, Guillaume Rousse wrote: >> there is a consensus to use the tainted repository for >> hosting it, provided some minor changes to its content definition first. > > If we're using tainted for this, I still think we should separate the Free > from the Nonfree packages. > We could have, say, tainted/free and tainted/nonfree.
Well a solution involving a new repository is a relatively simple one just add a non-free-tainted repository and we're done (of course this actually adds another four real-repositories because each will have release, updates, backports and updates_testing). Adding a new media however will result in a few interesting problems. I can't help bug feel that we're being somewhat blinkered here by already assuming that the problems of "free vs. non-free" and "tainted vs. non-tainted" are to be solved by a single solution. Perhaps taking a step back will allow different solutions to each problem present themselves. i.e. tainted has problems with both installation and distribution, but non-free is a purely user-led "political" choice (unless there are some distribution restrictions on some non-free packages?) If this is the crux of the media "conundrum" then perhaps the problems should be treated differently and different solutions sought? Col -- Colin Guthrie colin(at)mageia.org http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/