>From: Matija Nalis <mnalis-deb...@voyager.hr> > 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 ?
Well, unless specially modified, all the various package utilities running on top of dpkg will attempt to replace any ucspi-tcp package produced via ucspi-tcp-src, with ones produced from src:ucspi-tcp. While this isn't the most severe form of breakage that can occur, it is still easily qualifies as "breakage". > > 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. Sigh, interesting point and since you bring it up, it seems I need to generate *another* pair of wishlist/minor bugs for ucspi-tcp-src/qmail-src on this topic. I would suggest spending a bit more time examing the situation before replying so casually. Specifically, you have utterly failed to grasp the history of the relevant packages and why they are the way they are in the situation they are in. ucspi-tcp-src is not in non-free due to poor packaging or tools used by Jon Marler when packaging it. ucspi-tcp-src is in non-free because for a long time, Daniel J Bernstein's license for ucspi-tcp FORBADE distribution of binary-only packages. The "ucspi-tcp-src" package predates the license change by several years. Meanwhile, the "ucspi-tcp" came in post license change and thus started out in main. > > 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. This is a ridiculous comparison. ucspi-tcp-src is in the DEBIAN repository, not some specialized repository. > 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). Well, I can understand you coming to this conclusion due to your lack of knowledge. Take a look at the situation, ucspi-tcp-src has been in Debian for more than a decade. ucspi-tcp-src is in non-free because it predates the license change that allows the binary "ucspi-tcp" package to exist at all. As the license change has occured, ucspi-tcp-src can almost certainly be moved to main without modification (I doubt there are any concerns, but I haven't audited it for problems). Since ucspi-tcp-src has been using the name "ucspi-tcp" for more than a decade, I must attribute the fault to the packaging job done by Gerrit Pape. -- (\___(\___(\______ --=> 8-) EHM <=-- ______/)___/)___/) \BS ( | e...@gremlin.m5p.com PGP F6B23DE0 | ) / \_CS\ | _____ -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O- _____ | / _/ 2477\___\_|_/DC21 03A0 5D61 985B <-PGP-> F2BE 6526 ABD2 F6B2\_|_/___/3DE0 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
