Hi,
many thanks for your speedy reply!
> > 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 âgnomeâ 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.
The policy regarding "Recommends" says:
"
This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together
with this one in all but unusual installations.
"
and from that perspective I still think my point is very valid: An
installation of gnome without adblock-plus is not exactly unusual. Now I'm
not aware of a comparable guideline for metapackages and if one existed it
would likely be not worded as strongly. But even going with your "required
to properly use the machine" I can't see why an adblocker would fall into
this camp. I am using exclusively using Debian on all my computers with
different DEs since a number of years and I never felt like one of them was
not properly usable without an adblocker.
> > 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 donât have to use deliberately
> confrontational words such as âsneaked intoâ to make your point. The
> contents of the default installation is public.
Whoops! I am deeply sorry if you found my wording offending or
confrontational!
I felt that the package was "sneaked into" my install when I did a habitual
dist-upgrade and while reviewing the list of packages to be newly installed
I ran across adblock-plus.
Looks like my recent overdose of reading confrontational emails on d-d@l.d.o
lowered my rudeness filter but that can't be an excuse. Sincerest apologies.
I don't understand what you mean with 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.
>
> Letâs get real: âthe internetâ 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.
Well, and this is where I respectfully disagree. If someone feels offended
by the use of ads on websites he visits then he has a number of options to
choose from: either he refrains from visiting them, or he bears it, or he
installs an adblocker.
> I agree that it should be the userâs 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.
Honestly that doesn't sound like it's an easy fix. Plus it confuses those
who deliberately want the extension installed and see that it's not working
despite being installed.
Best,
Andreas
