Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

[Steve Langasek]

As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question
with the following ballot options:

 A  non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in 
main
 B  non-free packages should always be prohibited in package dependencies for 
main
 FD

  Whereas:

  1. The Debian Policy Manual states (§2.2.1) that packages in main
 "must not require or recommend a package outside of main for
 compilation or execution".  Both "Depends: package-in-non-free" and
 "Recommends: package-in-non-free" clearly violate this requirement.
 The Technical Committee has been asked to determine whether a
 dependency of the form "package-in-main | package-in-non-free"
 complies with this policy requirement, or whether virtual packages
 must instead be used to avoid mentioning the non-free alternative.

  2. Both options have the following effects in common, meeting the
 standard that main should be functional and useful while being
 self-contained:

(a) Package managers configured to consider only main will install
package-in-main.

(b) Package managers configured to consider both main and non-free
will prefer to install package-in-main, but may install
package-in-non-free instead if so instructed, or if
package-in-main is uninstallable.

(c) If package-in-non-free is already installed, package managers
will proceed without installing package-in-main.

  3. The significant difference between these two options is that the
 former makes the non-free alternative visible to everyone who
 examines the dependency relationship, while the latter does not.

A 4. Merely mentioning that a non-free alternative exists does not
Aconstitute a recommendation of that alternative.  For example, many
Afree software packages state quite reasonably that they can be
Acompiled and executed on non-free platforms.
A
A 5. Furthermore, virtual packages are often a clumsy way to express
Athese kinds of alternatives.  If a package happens to require any
Aof several implementations of a facility that have a certain
Aoption, then it can either depend on suitable alternatives
Adirectly, or its maintainer can first attempt to have fine-grained
Avirtual packages added to each of the packages they wish to permit.
AIn some cases this may be appropriate, but it can easily turn into
Aquite a heavyweight approach.
A
A Therefore:
A
A 6. The Technical Committee resolves that alternative dependencies of
Athe form "Depends: package-in-main | package-in-non-free" are
Apermissible in main, and do not constitute a violation of the
Apolicy clause cited in point 1.
A
A 7. We nevertheless recommend that packages in main consider carefully
Awhether this might cause the inadvertent installation of non-free
Apackages due to conflicts, especially those with usage
Arestrictions.

B 4. Listing a package explicitly in a Recommends field clearly states
Bthat we are recommending it, even if the package appears only as
Ba secondary alternative.  Official statements to the contrary are
Bineffective at preventing readers from getting the impression
Bthat packages mentioned in "Recommends" are being recommended.
B
B 5. One of the main goals of the Debian Project is to promote
Bsoftware freedom.  Promoting software freedom includes avoiding
Bpromoting non-free software, at the very least when it's
Bstraightforward to do so.
B
B 6. The alternative, of using a neutrally-named virtual package, is
Bonly slightly inconvenient.  Virtual packages are a suitable
Bexisting mechanism for packages to declare the set of abstract
Bfeatures they provide, and allow packages in main to depend on
Bsuch abstract features without needing to name every (free or
Bnon-free) alternative.  They should nevertheless name at least one
Bfree preferred alternative, so that the package management system
Bhas appropriate defaults.
B
B 7. There are not very many dependencies which need to be fixed.
BIn any case, changing the policy (without making this a release
Bcritical bug) doesn't constitute a demand that the existing
Bmaintainers do this work.  However, it is needed to ensure that
Bthose who do want to do the work can get their changes accepted.
B
B Therefore:
B
B 8. The Technical Committee resolves that alternative dependencies of
Bthe form "Depends: package-in-main | package-in-non-free"
Bconstitute a non-release-critical violation of the policy
Bclause cited in point 1.
B
B 9. When it is necessary to provide a reference in a Depends or
BRecommends from main to non-free, this should be done via a
Bneutrally named virtual package.  Packages depending on such a
Bvirtual package should specify a real package in main as the first
Balternative, e.g. "Depends: package-in-main | virtual-interface".
B
B 10. The Technical Committee 

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 07:56:41PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question
> with the following ballot options:

>  A  non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in 
> main
>  B  non-free packages should always be prohibited in package dependencies for 
> main
>  FD

I vote A, B, FD.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

[Russ Allbery]

Steve Langasek  writes:

> As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this
> question with the following ballot options:

>  A  non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in 
> main
>  B  non-free packages should always be prohibited in package dependencies for 
> main
>  FD

I vote A, B, FD.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


pgpbRnqK6lXOR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

[Bdale Garbee]

Steve Langasek  writes:

> As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question
> with the following ballot options:
>
>  A  non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in 
> main
>  B  non-free packages should always be prohibited in package dependencies for 
> main
>  FD

I vote A, B, FD.

Bdale


pgpbZrUuDs3dk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

[Keith Packard]

Steve Langasek  writes:

> As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question
> with the following ballot options:
>
>  A  non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in 
> main
>  B  non-free packages should always be prohibited in package dependencies for 
> main
>  FD

I vote

A
B
FD

-- 
keith.pack...@intel.com


pgpnoR14yslyy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

[Ian Jackson]

Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free 
packages in main: Call for Votes"):
> As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question
> with the following ballot options:
> 
>  A  non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in 
> main
>  B  non-free packages should always be prohibited in package dependencies for 
> main
>  FD

I vote B, A, FD.

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/21471.24914.366335.627...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

[Don Armstrong]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2014, Steve Langasek wrote:
> As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question
> with the following ballot options:
> 
>  A  non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in 
> main
>  B  non-free packages should always be prohibited in package dependencies for 
> main
>  FD

I vote

A B FD.

-- 
Don Armstrong  http://www.donarmstrong.com

An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications.
 -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p244


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140804155204.gl12...@teltox.donarmstrong.com

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

[Colin Watson]

On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 07:56:41PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
>  A  non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in 
> main
>  B  non-free packages should always be prohibited in package dependencies for 
> main
>  FD

I vote: B A FD.

(Rationale: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2013/09/msg3.html)

-- 
Colin Watson   [cjwat...@debian.org]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

[Andreas Barth]

* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [140803 04:00]:
> As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question
> with the following ballot options:
> 
>  A  non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in 
> main
>  B  non-free packages should always be prohibited in package dependencies for 
> main
>  FD

I vote A B FD.

(And apt should avoid pulling in some extra non-free packages during
conflict resolution unless specifically asked to do so.)


Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140808164624.gi20...@mails.so.argh.org