[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue

Tue Oct 30 08:58:31 CET 2012

PhilippeDidier a écrit :
+> andre999 a écrit :
+[...]
+>>
+>> In sum, I agree with the proposal of this thread to allow non-free
+>> packages in tainted repos.
+>>
+> The problem :
+> In Tainted repo we can find now vlc-tainted, gstreamer-tainted,
+> mencoder-tainted... they are free indeed (because built without faac)
+>
+> but what to do if we want to build them with faac : they are always
+> tainted but become non-free too !
+>
+> For instance, with vlc (it's the same for mplayer or others) :
+>
+> 1) is it possible to have two versions of the same package in the same
+> repo ?
+> a vlc-free-tainted one (built with mp3 codec without faac) for strict
+> opensource users
+> and a vlc-nonfree-tainted one (built with mp3 decoder with faac) for
+> ordinary users, with an information for strict opensource users to avoid it
+>
+> 2) or must we choose one version ... and then who will be satisfied
+> only vlc-free-tainted (strict opensource users will be happy but other
+> ordinary users can't work on aac files)
+> only vlc-nonfree-tainted (everybody is happy except the strict
+> opensource users that can no more even hear mp3 files with vlc...)
+>
+
+Please note :  Whatever the repo, if there are 2 almost identical 
+packages, whatever the difference, they have to have different names, or 
+one would replace the other.
+So we could theoretically use only one set of repos, without changing 
+any package names.  (Not that I recommend it.)
+That would probably make it trickier to ensure that free/open source 
+packages without distribution constraints don't contain non-free or 
+contrained dependancies, as well as more confusing for users, but that 
+doesn't affect the package names.
+
+Currently you might notice that some packages in tainted contain 
+"tainted" after mga* (in the revision part of the full package name), 
+and with a corresponding package in core with the same name except 
+without the word "tainted".  That is one way to deal with packages 
+with/without tainted components.
+Something similar has been done in a few cases to distinguish 
+free/nonfree versions of a package.
+
+Personnally, I would favour putting "tainted" or "nonfree" (or rather an 
+abbreviated form, say "[nf]" or "[tnt]") at the end of the main part of 
+the package name.
+(We could even do this for those packages without free/nonfree or 
+free/tainted versions.)
+By putting this in the main part of the package name, there will never 
+be something like a tainted package replacing a core package during 
+updates, which can happen now.  We could use the provides keyword to 
+allow the user to select which type of a particular package they prefer.
+
+A nice secondary effect of this, if we do this for all non-free and 
+tainted packages, is that wherever we place the package file, the name 
+indicates its' category.  Without having to look inside.  We could even 
+have the build system automatically adding such tags.
+It would make it easier for confirmed free-only or unconstrained-only 
+users to avoid unwanted packages.
+
+> If we can't satisfy everybody, we have to choose who must be satisfied,
+> and why !...
+
+But we can ... almost :)
+
+-- 
+André
+