[Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?

Wed Jul 6 11:57:48 CEST 2011

Am 17.03.2011 09:14, schrieb Samuel Verschelde:
+> Le mardi 15 mars 2011 21:30:05, Michael Scherer a écrit :
+>> Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 20:34 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
+>>> Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21
+>>>
+>>>> Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted stuff,
+>>>> but do care about free licenses and do care about what it bring to
+>>>> them.
+>>>>
+>>>> I do. Stormi do ( or seems to do ). And I think that given we decided
+>>>> to
+>>>> split PLF for that precise reason, there is more than 2 of us to care.
+>>>>
+>>>>> Putting tainted packages in nonfree just causes more confusion
+>>>>> IMHO.
+>>>> As much as the reverse, it all depends on what you tell to people
+>>>> about
+>>>> the repository, what they expect and what you prefer to highlight.
+>>> That's exactly why I suggested earlier in this thread that we need an
+>>> additional repo for 'tainted+non-free' packages, that's the only solution
+>>> that would satisfy every preference people might have and at the same
+>>> time make things clear for everyone (packagers, mirror maintainers,
+>>> users).
+>> Instead of moving stuff in non-free, you move them in non-free +
+>> tainted. That just bring more headaches, and more complexity.
+>>
+>> That's not a solution.
+> Well, that would be a real solution if we really wanted to flag those packages
+> both as tainted and as non-free, as some people give more importance to the
+> fact that it is tainted and others to the fact that it is non-free.
+>
+> For now, I would propose either to put that package in non-free, explain to
+> users that non-free packages may be tainted too, and envision after Mageia 1
+> to add a new media if the current solution really doesn't work, and maybe
+> require a meta-package from tainted  OR put it in tainted, explain that
+> tainted can contain non-free packages, and require a dummy package from non-
+> free, as Anssi proposed (on a second thought, I think that second option is
+> better).
+>
+> Can we reach a decision ? (add this question to the next packagers meeting ?)
+*bump*
+As there was no decision reached, not even a concensus, how do we proceed now?
+As there is the next package (HandBrake) which also falls under both 
+categories, tainted and non-free.
+
+The option of moving such packages to non-free, and requiring a package from 
+tainted (or vice-versa)
+which explains shortly via a README.urpmi about the problem, and to enable the 
+missing repo,
+sounds not that bad. (If you really want to go that far.)
+
+Regards
+