On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 09:22:52AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 07 Jan 2008, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > Since the Debian project apparently intends to continue distributing > > > non-free software, should this bug be marked as wontfix? > > > > The point is not even wanting to distribute non-free software or > > not. Even if Debian wasn't "distributing non-free software" (which is > > highly debatable), tools have no reason to blacklist repositories that > > do. "Our priorities are our users blah blah blah". > > Of course, blacklisting repositories is not something acceptable. However, > before closing this bug, it makes sense to verify that dselect doesn't > show packages in Suggests: or Recommends: if they don't exist according to > its list of packages. > > That way, when non-free is not used, non-free packages are not shown, > which seems to be the right behaviour.
If it doesn't show packages which it thinks don't exist, what happens when (for example) a package is removed from testing? Instead of showing as "unavailable", it'd just be hidden. Unless there's a way of distinguishing between a package that's missing because it's in another repository, and a package that's usually in the same repository but temporarily unavailable, I don't think this is a good idea. Doing this only for recommended/suggested packages sounds okay, but as I understand it there's no way of telling whether a package is in non-free unless non-free is actually enabled. -- Benjamin A'Lee :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subvert Technologies :: http://subvert.org.uk/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
