[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue

Wed Oct 3 15:51:06 CEST 2012

On Wed, 03 Oct 2012, Colin Guthrie wrote:
+
+> 'Twas brillig, and Guillaume Rousse at 03/10/12 08:40 did gyre and gimble:
+> > Le 02/10/2012 23:58, PhilippeDidier a écrit :
+> >> If the problem is really not soluble inside Mageia we can ask for a
+> >> third party repo (guys from Blogdrake already provide FAAC, handbrake
+> >> and cinerella... may we ask them to rebuild upon FAAC some Mageia's rpms
+> >> ? the spec files are ready for this!)
+> > It is perfectly soluble, and we don't need anyone else. If you reread
+> > the thread, there is a consensus to use the tainted repository for
+> > hosting it, provided some minor changes to its content definition first.
+> 
+> Just as a possible solution here (which might actually make life easier
+> generally and perhaps even see the deprecation of the non-free
+> repository completely....
+> 
+> Could we add a "license blacklist" (or whitelist) feature to URMI?
+
+This is an interesting idea.
+
+For tainted/not tainted, we need to have separate repositories, so that
+mirror owners can easily filter tainted packages if needed.
+
+For free/non-free, we mainly need users to be able to select what kind
+of packages they want. This is currently done by having separate
+repositories for free and non-free, but if urpmi had a feature to select
+what kind of license you want, I think we could have both free and
+non-free packages in the same repository.
+
+However in that case, some package which can optionally be linked to
+nonfree software will need to be present two times in the same repository:
+one version of the package linked to nonfree software, and an other
+version not linked to nonfree software. Maybe using different package
+names.
+
+