Hi, Quoting Stefano Zacchiroli (2016-01-04 23:14:11) > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:45:37AM +0000, Niels Thykier wrote: > > Your second item has been brought up before with different > > focus/rationale/purpose. At least I remember there being an interest > > in splitting "non-free" into "non-free/firmware" vs. various other > > non-free sub components. > > Another one that is worth mentioning here --- which I discussed in the > context of non-free.org with Dafydd Harries and others --- is > introducing a debtags facet to capture the reason why a package is in > non-free. At least two hierarchies come to mind: 1) which point of DFSG > is not respected, and 2) which one of the 4 freedoms are not granted. > > I've had on my TODO list proposing the relevant debtags facets since at > least 2 years, but never found the time to actually do that. This is a > very actionable item: it is enough to follow the procedure for proposing > a new debtags. (Procedure that I cannot find right now, but IIRC it > includes coming up with a list of tag names + a list of at least N > packages, with N relatively low, that are already in the archive and > that would carry each tag.)
while I would welcome this sort of information being captured using debtags, this would not help me if I wanted to tell apt which packages are okay for me and which ones are not because apt cannot set pin priorities according to a package's debtags, right? Also, can the reason why something is in non-free not be captured by increased and a more structured use of DEP-5 (machine-readable debian/copyright)? Certainly I'd welcome support of apt for both: debtags *and* licenses in debian/copyright :) My own motivation to have better control over non-free is my package ldraw-parts which is released under the "Creative Commons Attribution Licence version 2.0" and thus non-free. I can imagine that more people than just me would find that license acceptable enough. Thanks! cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
