On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:57:20PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > >From: Gerrit Pape <p...@smarden.org> > > Hi, you don't say in which way it breaks the older unofficial package > > for you. > > Seeing how ucspi-tcp is/was most often generated from ucspi-tcp-src for
note: you still didn't say in which way it broke the older unofficial package for you ? > more than the past 10 years, I'd hardly call it "unofficial". Please read Debian social contract, section 5: `We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian.' So, "are not part of the Debian" == "unofficial" ucspi-tcp-src if (as of yet) part of "non-free", and hence unofficial. Also note the priorities of Debian in section 4 of social contract, regarding free/non-free software. > > available in Debian/non-free. ucspi-tcp-src is still available, if > > you don't want to upgrade to this new binary package, you should stop > > the installation, make sure the ucspi-tcp-src package is installed, > > and put ucspi-tcp on hold, as described in > > > > http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-pkg_basics.en.html#s-puttingonhold > > > > I'm sorry, I not yet understand your concerns. > > The above is unacceptable. It sounds perfectly acceptable to me. I have nothing against people having access to non-free, but when it comes to such situation as here of having to make a choice of who needs to put more effort - the "main" (free software) or "non-free", I'd always uphold the Debian Social Contract and go for "non-free" being the one needing to put more effort, and official and free "main" needing less effort. > I'm pretty sure the correct approach would be to name yours > "ucspi-tcp-pape" and mark it as providing "ucspi-tcp". Thus not forcing People could've been using other unofficial sources compatible with Debian (there are dozens, look up apt-get.org list for example); and I think it is unreasonable to expect Debian changing its' official packages in order to satisfy minor concerns of the unofficial ones. So if anything (if you think there is an conflict that needs to be solved, which I also fail to see), ucspi-tcp-src package should be modified *not* to create binary package called ucspi-tcp, as there is already a package with such name which *is* a part of Debian (the one Gerrit maintains). > people to mark the package as being on hold (which has various problems). Also, while there are sometimes issues with hold packages (which could usually be worked around with apt-pinning) I do not see any of them in this case: as ucspi-tcp is not available to be retrieved via APT from non-free (instead, user pulls with apt new version of ucspi-tcp-src from non-free, builds that, and then manually installs the locally created package with dpkg - where hold status won't matter at all). So I also fail to see any problems created by putting such package on hold if you do not want it being overwritten with free version. -- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
