[Mageia-dev] Build-in or stand-alone module for X to support Y

Sat Dec 10 13:45:59 CET 2011

Op zaterdag 10 december 2011 13:12:52 schreef Kamil Rytarowski:
+> Hello!
+> 
+> Situation:
+> A package X may have support for a package Y, by a module as a build in
+> X or stand-alone package. All modules are possible to turn-on and to
+> turn-off in a menu of X.
+> 
+> And there is a discussion because there is no Y at all in Mageia.
+> Person A says:
+> - include the module, even if there is no Y in Mageia (and maybe never
+> will be included), because an end-user can install Y from alternative
+> source or compile it from sources; and don't add Suggests/Requires for Y
+> in the package, because it's obvious that this is to support Y; also
+> installing Y from alternative sources/self-compilation is much simpler
+> than reinstalling X with support for Y
+> Person B says:
+> - don't include the module, because Y is a dependency for the module of
+> X - and we don't ship broken packages that aren't self-contained; so it
+> must be excluded from X or the nobody has package Y and maintain it
+> 
+> Neither A nor B want to work with Y package.
+> 
+> Who is right?
+
+imho, if Y is wanted by some people, and X works more of less fine without Y 
+even if it's support is compiled, and sometimes a get-Y package is fine.
+
+imho it's maintainer's preference, if maintainer is fine to also "support the 
+Y-module for X" even if depends on Y and Y is not allowed in mageia, or even 
+if Y is in nonfree... it's fine by me.
+
+let's get into specifics:
+
+eg:
+
+X = eduke32 (free)
+Y = content from CDROM (non-redistributable and must be bought)
+Y' = eduke32-hrp (nonfree, but redistributable, may arguably depend on Y, may 
+in future become free, company holding the license of the few files has gone 
+away, the few files may be redone or become GPL-compatible)
+Y'' = demo-data (nonfree, but redistributable)
+(also there are other mods who may serve as Y''')
+
+Y' supposedly doens't work without Y; but maybe it does more or less
+Y'' is shareware
+
+what users want is usually X + Y'
+
+thus in such cases i want to provide X in core, Y' in nonfree and perhaps Y'' 
+in nonfree as well.
+
+this may all seem complicated, but:
+
+businesses aren't necessarily wrong, i mean, they provide programs for 
+windows/mac, if we want them to also provide for linux, we should make a step 
+towards them.
+
+furthermore, any step towards opensource should be encouraged, thus i feel 
+that "free engines" should still be free.
+
+i think a README.install.urpmi should be attached to those and noted that Y is 
+required for it. furthermore Y' should be suggested, even if it's in nonfree 
+repos.
+
+just my €0.02
+