* 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
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:
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
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
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org 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
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
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:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org 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
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org 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
I wrote:
In particular, I think Steve's example is one where we should
certainly not compromise our principles just because some proprietary
software distributors are being uncooperative. Our political
opponents, with whom we are making a practical compromise, are giving
those of us who want
Ian == Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Ian And from a practical point of view, I would prefer to make a
Ian choice that significantly eases collaboration with the GNU
Ian Project to one that slightly eases collaboration with
Ian proprietary software vendors.
Steve Langasek writes (Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free
packages in main: counterargument):
Sorry for the delays in writing this up.
...
I believe the *spirit* of the policy requirement is twofold:
I won't repeat myself too much, but as I have said I think there is a
third
Sorry for the delays in writing this up.
Of the two options presented at
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/debian-ctte.git;a=blob;f=681419_free_non_free_dependencies/cjwatson_draft.txt;h=f07b7d1c25adeb69d113640b1a5a900923cc0621;hb=HEAD,
I am unequivocally in favor of option A and
forward 681419
http://git.donarmstrong.com/?p=debian-ctte.git;a=blob;f=681419_free_non_free_dependencies/681419_free_non_free_dependencies.org
thanks
I've been going through and doing summaries for the current status of
the CTTE bugs; this is my understanding of where we are for 681419:
* Issue
Russ Allbery writes (Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages
in main):
Well, if we want to go this route, we could require use of a virtual
package in all cases like this. Then foo and foo-nonfree would both
Provide: foo (and probably Conflicts: foo), and those who want
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Do we know what proportion of the existing references out of main into
non-free/contrib could be done this way ?
I'm not sure; we'd have to check. However, it seems like it should handle
all of them except any that would need a versioned
Russ Allbery writes (Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages
in main):
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Would we also want to do something to avoid the package managers
complaining about nonexistent virtual packages ? I guess they are
already happy
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: normal
As a Debian Policy delegate, I'm delegating to the Technical Committee
the resolution of bugs #587279 and #616462.
The current Policy wording is:
In addition, the packages in main
* must not require or recommend a package outside of main
for
18 matches
Mail list logo
