Basically, a number of us want to do it, but to do it right requires
that dpkg be upgraded. Which means it's going to be a while...
Is someone working on the changes in dpkg? Could I help
expedite matters by finding someone to do or help do the work?
What ever happened with the question of making a way that
we could distribute and reference just the Official Debian system
without referring to the non-free packages? Is anyone working on this?
Have people decided to do this?
We were discussing the idea of changing Debian's distribution and web
arrangements so that people could easily recommend and distribute just
the Official Debian system without the non-free packages.
I think we agreed that separating FTP servers isn't needed provided
APT is set up properly (and pro
Wait. This is not true. You are free to set up a mirror at
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/debian where non-free and contrib are left
aside.
The way things are set up at present, this wouldn't be enough to do
the job right. We would also have to change some of the contents of
the distribution
The point is that our files are already quite separated; we do
not consider non-free or contrib as part of Debian; and they are in
separate areas of the FTP archive. They are not distributed on CD.
Clearly the separation exists, and is used.
The separation is visible when you lo
I think this is a fair way of doing things. The script could ask for
sections to be included, defaulting to main and possibly crontrib?
Since most contrib packages depend on non-free, the most useful thing
is to list contrib only if non-free is listed.
Or perhaps apt could find all the co
We don't have the resources for market research or formal usability
testing, so its a judgement call. It's true that if you want a mirror
site, you need to edit the file.
I think the long term goal it to automate it somewhat more than that.
The idea, IIRC, is to have a user sel
Ean Schuessler wrote:
Fundamentally, some Debianers believe that
selecting Free software because you had no other choice is no moral
decision at all.
It takes time to think about these issues, and time to realize how
freedom affects your life. System installation can force users to
There is a setup script that the user can run, it
provides recommendations of sites and configuration formats that include
non-free and non-us.
Could you email me that script? I would like to see precisely what it
does, what it says to the user and what it asks the user to say.
Does
If you want to refer them to "gnu.debian.org" web
site (a better name than "debian.gnu.org" if we're going to do the
work), then that site should be sufficient, and can be constructed as
I previously outlined with minimal hassle (because it's 100%
transparent to our existing u
Which is why I said a couple of days ago that I thought you missed the
significance of apt.
I know that apt is significant, but I don't know precisely what
significance it has, and precisely how much. That depends on a lot of
details. I have only the fragmentary information which has com
My understanding was that the archive split proposal only affects the
FTP and HTTP services for downloading packages. As such, it does
nothing to promote your goal of providing an interface to only the
free packages (it only changes the URLs of the non-free ones).
It has a direct
What I understand you want is a page, or set of pages, that just talk
about the "main" section and don't link to anywhere that talks about
contrib or non-free.
That is part of the issue: I would like to be able to refer people to
an official Debian web site, without thus referring peop
Unless the user is
aware of the problems of software licensing, he will never know what
GNU/Linux is all about.
I agree with you, and I am constantly working to inform people
about this.
The best way to bring this issue to users' attention is to (1) provide
articles about the issue,
Richard, Debian has pledged in our social contract to support our users of
non-free software and our users in general, please review
http://www.debian.org/social_contract, particularly point 5.
I explicitly acknowledged in my previous message that Debian is going
to do this. If you th
What you then asked us to do is exactly what you said you wouldn't ask us
to do. You want us to STOP supporting non-free software. You want us to
take it off our main servers. You want us to remove ALL mention of it
from anyplace it can be found.
This is a grievous misrepresenta
If I were certain that what we are discussing here is just moving the
archives to another box and making apt not use the non-free archive by
default, I have no problem with it. As long as there is still mention
someplace that is not hard to find if you're looking for it, I have no
> It would be like asking children, "Should we offer you some candy
> before your meal?"
This, I'm afraid, I don't agree with. What is so appealing about
non-free software?
To most users, any additional software packages are appealing. The
free packages are appealing, and the no
Why doesn't GNU set up their own front-end to Debian,
one that only allows access to what GNU considers to be "free"?
I understand what it means to write a front end for a program, but I
don't see how to adapt the concept of "front end" to the situation of
Debian. Debian is a collection o
Not at all true! He was, IIRC, perfectly happy with the suggestion
that non-free repositories be listed in source.list as long as they
were commented out *by default* -- or even commented out only if
someone responded "yes" to a question like, "would you like to see
only truly
Credibility does not come from staying close to the majority view.
Credibility comes from sincerity. The way to gain and keep
credibility is to take a clear position based on solid logic, and
follow it to its consequences based on the facts. That is how the
Debian has gained its credibility, and
>A few months ago, I think someone mentioned that some packages were in
>contrib because their quality or utility was marginal, even though
>they had no dependence on non-free software. If that is true, those
Some packages are in contrib because they depends on software like
Otherwise just about everything in contrib has dependency on non-free
software.
That makes it simple--put the contrib packages on the server that has
the non-free packages.
A few months ago, I think someone mentioned that some packages were in
contrib because their quality or utility was
The programs in contrib are free, but many programs are put in contrib
because they are not useful in an all-free system. Many depend on
non-free packages to be useful.
I think these programs should be kept with the non-free packages.
On the other hand, some programs are in contrib for another r
> That's a good message. Because as we all (or most at least) know,
> free software is just plain better. [:=)
I don't think that's an accurate statement, and I don't think even the
FSF has ever said this. I think their point is that free software is
morally 'better', and for
Debian uses a single transferable voting method, in which developers
rank their preferences. Presumably your votes would be 1243 (in order
of ballot position).
That avoids the problem I was worried about.
I'm sorry to have brought up an unnecessary tangent.
The social contract has as the very first item `Debian Will Remain 100%
Free Software'. So we need to do something to make once again clear
to everyone exactly what Debian is and show more clearly what we don't
consider to be free.
Hear, hear!
I. Create a new host, nonfree.deb
27 matches
Mail list logo
