Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Peter S Galbraith]

John H. Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> my experience with the installer .deb's is limited mostly to the
> installers made for pine and djbware.
> 
> they download the source, patch the source, then build the source. the
> result is a .deb. that .deb can then be installed. since it is a .deb
> installed by dpkg, it is under dpkg control and can be removed at any
> time. the additional benefit is that you can take that .deb and install
> it elsewhere, too.
> 
> this works for things like pine and djbware, since the source code is
> available. for things like flash or MS Office, source would not be
> available. the installer making a .deb out of a binary distribution may
> be harder, but i feel that it is certainly possible.

It's in fact easier.  Just `mv' the binary to debian/tmp/usr/bin.
XForms use to be like this.
 
> Mathieu Roy wrote:
>
> > I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian,
> > should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free
> > software, when installing it.

That's a good idea!
 
> the ones that i am familir with do exactly that. i cannot speak for all
> of them, though.

Most don't.

> > Some packages clearly identified that vrms can clearly identify, some
> > package we can easily track and remove completely at will.
> 
> IIRC, the qmail.deb is placed into section Local, which is why VRMS does
> not notice it.
> 
> > So I think it would be appropriate to fill a bug for any of these
> > installers, asking them to build a correct debian package for the
> > software they install.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> i would not mind if the installer's built .deb were listed as section
> non-free, so vrms could pick it up.

wishlist bug, but yes it's a good idea.  It could become policy when
enough of then do it.

Peter

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Brian May]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 04:56:51PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> > true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.
> 
> The usual reasons are that they don't allow sufficient redistribution
> for us to include them in the Debian archive at all, or that they don't
> allow distribution of modified versions (including Debian packages
> constructed from them).

An installer package could create a Debian package "on the fly"...

I don't think this would break any licenses.

It would also allow vrms to detect it as non-free software.
-- 
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Josh Lauricha]

On Tue  16:34, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Supposedly, it already does:
>   

Actually, my boss just installed that the other day and it apparently
does work well. How much of it is just WINE is a pretty wrapper, I'm not
to certain.

-- 


| Josh Lauricha|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Bioinformatics, UCR  |
|--|

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 13:54 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may
Supposedly, it already does:

needed by users. But I'm sure we can found 3000 companies that
would switch over GNU/Linux if Microsoft Office was available.
... start looking.

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Mathieu Roy]

> > I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian,
> > should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free
> > software, when installing it.
> 
> the ones that i am familir with do exactly that. i cannot speak for all
> of them, though.

If they all works this way, there no big bug, they just have make sure
the packages will be correctly listed as non-free.

I checked at least flashplayer-nonfree and it does not seem to build
any debian package at all. In fact, you have a ruby script that do
what dpkg and apt-get would be doing if flashplayer was debian
package. 




-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Joey Hess]

John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> my experience with the installer .deb's is limited mostly to the
> installers made for pine and djbware.

Strictly speaking those are not installers. The source is available in
the debian archive, we just can't distribute compiled binaries from it.

Installers for gratis, non-free binaries much more often take the form
of the old realplayer installer: Download the binary and drop it
somewhere, possibly deal with upgrades to the binary, and when removed,
delete the binary.

-- 
see shy jo


pgpQaSpc2ZhYJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[John H. Robinson, IV]

I don't need to be CC:'d, thanks.

Mathieu Roy wrote:
> 
> Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may
> have a free software in contrib that will install it, without the
> possibility to remove it with the standard debian tools. 

my experience with the installer .deb's is limited mostly to the
installers made for pine and djbware.

they download the source, patch the source, then build the source. the
result is a .deb. that .deb can then be installed. since it is a .deb
installed by dpkg, it is under dpkg control and can be removed at any
time. the additional benefit is that you can take that .deb and install
it elsewhere, too.

this works for things like pine and djbware, since the source code is
available. for things like flash or MS Office, source would not be
available. the installer making a .deb out of a binary distribution may
be harder, but i feel that it is certainly possible.

> I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian,
> should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free
> software, when installing it.

the ones that i am familir with do exactly that. i cannot speak for all
of them, though.

> Some packages clearly identified that vrms can clearly identify, some
> package we can easily track and remove completely at will.

IIRC, the qmail.deb is placed into section Local, which is why VRMS does
not notice it.

> So I think it would be appropriate to fill a bug for any of these
> installers, asking them to build a correct debian package for the
> software they install.
> 
> What do you think?

i would not mind if the installer's built .deb were listed as section
non-free, so vrms could pick it up.

-john

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Mathieu Roy]

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :

> Op di 02-09-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mathieu Roy:
> > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> > true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.
> 
> There's one single requirement for software to go in non-free: we have
> to be allowed to redistribute it.
> 
> In some cases, the license prohibits the act of redistribution -- even
> if the software itself can be downloaded gratis from the author's
> website. That's when installer packages get written :-)

And so we have some almost meta-package in contrib, called
installers, that install software that do not even fit for
non-free. It's a strange workaround, to use contrib to provide
packages that we cannot even provide in non-free. 

I'm puzzled. At first, I was thinking it was some kind of workaround
to avoid entering non-free but, in fact, it would be a workaround for
to enter debian for packages that would not be allowed at all in any
other case -- which is in fact more sensible, easier to understand. 

Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may
have a free software in contrib that will install it, without the
possibility to remove it with the standard debian tools. 
Someone may say that are included in Debian only software estimated
needed by users. But I'm sure we can found 3000 companies that
would switch over GNU/Linux if Microsoft Office was available.

That's ok if we stick to the policy. But I'm not sure it was the
spirit of the policy to allows that. And I think more important to
try to stick to the spirit of the policy than to it's letter. Because
changing its letter is always an option while changing its spirit is,
I'm sure you'll agree, definitely not an option.

I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian,
should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free
software, when installing it. Some packages clearly identified that
vrms can clearly identify, some package we can easily track and remove
completely at will. So people would know what they exactly have on 
their computer. And I think that was the main point of the person who
started the thread, the ability for the user to track this non-free
software he got.

So I think it would be appropriate to fill a bug for any of these
installers, asking them to build a correct debian package for the
software they install.

What do you think?


-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Colin Watson]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.

The usual reasons are that they don't allow sufficient redistribution
for us to include them in the Debian archive at all, or that they don't
allow distribution of modified versions (including Debian packages
constructed from them).

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[David Weinehall]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:

[snip]

> So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.

Yes, some (a lot of) non-free, but gratis, software do not allow
redistribution, or imposes limits on the redistribution such that it
cannot be packaged even for non-free.


Regards: David Weinehall
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander  (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/   Full colour fire   (/

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Wouter Verhelst]

Op di 02-09-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mathieu Roy:
> So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.

There's one single requirement for software to go in non-free: we have
to be allowed to redistribute it.

In some cases, the license prohibits the act of redistribution -- even
if the software itself can be downloaded gratis from the author's
website. That's when installer packages get written :-)

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
  -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.


signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Mathieu Roy]

"John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :

> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > > 
> > > >He might even be running vrms - and vrms
> > > >will not complain about the non-free software he has installed!
> > > 
> > > Then file a bug report (on vrms). Perhaps it'd even be useful if 
> > > installer packages somehow marked that they've installed non-free 
> > > software, then vrms could look at that.
> > 
> > Random package:
> > Provides: non-free-installer
> > 
> > vrms:
> > Conflicts: non-free-installer
> > 
> > Done.
> 
> won't work:
> 
> you install the installer, vrms gets removed. you run the installer, and
> then dpkg -i the resultant .deb. you --purge the installer, and install
> vrms again.
> 
> you now have a non free package _and_ vrms installed, and vrms _still_
> is not telling you about it.

That's lead me to this conclusion: these installers's debian packages
in contrib install packages on Debian systems without using the true
debian software management tool (dpkg). 

So these non-free softwares installed get ignored by vrms... In fact,
these installers should build a debian package for the non-free
software they install, to keep the debian installation clean. It would
be easier to track down their installation, to remove them, to upgrade
them.

But it will be also makes more obvious the complicated justification
of their presence inside contrib... 

Maybe we should reconsider these packages and think them as package
builder for non-free software instead of installers (if they follow
the idea of building a debian package of the software they
download)... because there is already an installer in Debian
(dpkg). But in fact, there is also already a package builder in
Debian...  

So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
"installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.






-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[John H. Robinson, IV]

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > 
> > >He might even be running vrms - and vrms
> > >will not complain about the non-free software he has installed!
> > 
> > Then file a bug report (on vrms). Perhaps it'd even be useful if 
> > installer packages somehow marked that they've installed non-free 
> > software, then vrms could look at that.
> 
> Random package:
> Provides: non-free-installer
> 
> vrms:
> Conflicts: non-free-installer
> 
> Done.

won't work:

you install the installer, vrms gets removed. you run the installer, and
then dpkg -i the resultant .deb. you --purge the installer, and install
vrms again.

you now have a non free package _and_ vrms installed, and vrms _still_
is not telling you about it.

-john

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 20:27 US/Eastern, Martijn van Oosterhout 
wrote:

Random package:
Provides: non-free-installer
vrms:
Conflicts: non-free-installer
No, because that's not how vrms works. vrms just mails you (once a 
month, I believe) which non-free packages are installed. It also 
informs you when you run it from the command line.

It doesn't conflict with non-free packages.

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> 
> On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> 
> >He might even be running vrms - and vrms
> >will not complain about the non-free software he has installed!
> 
> Then file a bug report (on vrms). Perhaps it'd even be useful if 
> installer packages somehow marked that they've installed non-free 
> software, then vrms could look at that.

Random package:
Provides: non-free-installer

vrms:
Conflicts: non-free-installer

Done.
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout  http://svana.org/kleptog/
> "All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good
> men to do nothing." - Edmond Burke
> "The penalty good people pay for not being interested in politics is to be
> governed by people worse than themselves." - Plato


pgps6TPlnLGOB.pgp
Description: PGP signature