Re: vrms and contrib installers

2003-09-03 Thread Mathieu Roy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : > > > 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 i

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

2003-09-02 Thread 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

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

2003-09-02 Thread 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

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

2003-09-02 Thread 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. -- ---

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

2003-09-02 Thread 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

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

2003-09-02 Thread 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

Re: vrms and contrib installers

2003-09-02 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Please follow up to debian-legal, where this belongs. Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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

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

2003-09-02 Thread 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 grat

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

2003-09-02 Thread 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 l

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

2003-09-02 Thread 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 n

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

2003-09-02 Thread 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,

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

2003-09-02 Thread 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

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

2003-09-02 Thread 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 t

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

2003-09-02 Thread 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

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

2003-09-02 Thread 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! > > > > Th

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

2003-09-01 Thread 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

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

2003-09-01 Thread 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 i

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

2003-09-01 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
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-fre