Hi, Le dimanche 30 novembre 2014 à 11:59 +0100, Andreas Schneider a écrit : > the introduction of "recommends xul-ext-adblock-plus" is uncalled for. > This has already been discussed in quite some length in #689858 (merged with > #715555 and #721516) where a number of reasons for that have been given. Some > of them were due to this beeing a "depends" back then, but all other reasons > are still valid. The most important one to me continues to be that a desktop > environment and this browser extension have absolutely nothing to do with each > other.
The “gnome” metapackage defines what is installed on a desktop or laptop with the GNOME selection. So it has everything to do with installing what is required to properly use the machine. > Users who think they want an adblocker should conciously decide to install it > and not having it sneaked into their install by a recommends. This particular package is certainly worth discussing, and the dependency is not set in stone. But you don’t have to use deliberately confrontational words such as “sneaked into” to make your point. The contents of the default installation is public. > Somewhat off-topic and more on the more philosophical front: "the internet" is > largely paid for by ads and if you don't like how ads are used by some > websites > then you are free to not visit them. Let’s get real: “the internet” is not usable without an ad blocker, and it has gotten much worse in the two years that passed since the last time we had this discussion. I agree that it should be the user’s choice, but the idea was to avoid the extra action of installing the extension. Maybe we could ship it disabled by default if it is possible. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
