-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:08:35AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > > On 15/01/16 04:00, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > > >> default softphone in Debian[1] > > > > It should be up to the user what communications tools they want to use > > and or have installed (if any), that is none of our business, other > > than perhaps informing them of the security properties of what is > > available and or providing the default upstream tool choices via > > metapackages where available.
I strongly disagree. Users should be able to choose, and we should not force one option on them. But users should not be forced to choose. A major feature of using a distribution is that you don't need to choose individual programs to install, but get a well functioning system. Don't confuse the freedom to choose with the obligation to choose. Freedom is good, and so is having good defaults. > If there are meta-packages (e.g. sip-client, xmpp-client), should any > softphone be able to assert that it provides sip-client? Or should > there be some quality threshold? I think there should be a threshold. Failing to meet that should be ground for an RC bug. In other words, the package can be in unstable, but not in testing (or stable). > For example, WebRTC browsers must officially support G.711 and Opus > codecs. Many softphones don't support Opus yet. Should we say that > support for Opus is mandatory for any package that provides sip-client > or xmpp-client and any package that falls short has to remove the > Provides line from debian/control or be hit with an RC bug? Yes, that sounds reasonable. If a package Depends: sip-client, things are expected to work well. > Using some threshold for quality and interoperability will help the > majority of users to choose from the more desirable softphones, but no > softphone would be excluded from the distribution. Also, an RC bug is not always a problem. If a maintainer believes that it is useful to have a work in progress program in Debian, it can be in unstable, with an RC bug to prevent it from entering testing. Thanks, Bas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWmPIrAAoJEJzRfVgHwHE6ZpMP/0/EEjPpfCBTu479xUqDMZFr g3/7qjPVUhD7DI6SIez55Rav8YC7UiS+khwb4emlmT/olk18nfdpYEVwhkniv4vN pxDE8YerOUAqs3ZqicbhwsNx1SRw+rHnurJfJFUEldw5+M1hnLTnSZ3NCpoS1IUI 06VLw6yuKa2udwaP+JpXyBVrRceRXWti9gU5xHCO2VgsDol6ug1jHWGZq8tugPqL QLBeWzswFszAhSp81SIY8Ez9DvIIXBrQrVzUCUly/yaSAzOHUi5hD88KHaMSZrzt DLx8yAVM6iG4fVYD7f6VzRTCl55YMKJIU2XuH19efI94/5WEZTumPEL19RrRe+8u Bo+xzlFd346skNp+cT8ytHyGlXHUQCbPp9GxAPMbNeoal/DF7zFgTudDcNPnyPb4 cJOnUfhFbfekr3l3ETfwMyuf0Awv2SGmY2XaS5mqxdMNuRsCWbGp0AJTI7nR4Lil wAeZW1HWS2cE0r3cd3Te99O7jC6loDgPXAb/BrWLSEBpR2TqXzBEnR6q712JezMK pkoelAiFaJ3DKtx4ONp/hyC5D6Zr2u1j83dGACZamlzfJ3UFTqVfHsuNu2f/VPjA Q2Y5vtjBE3IyS2FZX8K2Y3t2FTmuhHKhGiUh44opkgyH5kOh4ATBHEwp2VtOP4eI 2qQfoqbIzezKrYmeYOgx =iUqi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
