Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [140803 04:00]: > As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question > with the following ballot options: > > A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in > main > B non-free packages should always be

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 07:56:41PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in > main > B non-free packages should always be prohibited in package dependencies for > main > FD I vote: B A FD. (Rationale: https://lists.debian.or

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

On Sat, 02 Aug 2014, Steve Langasek wrote: > As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question > with the following ballot options: > > A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in > main > B non-free packages should always be prohibited

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes"): > As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question > with the following ballot options: > > A non-free packages as non-default alte

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

Steve Langasek writes: > As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question > with the following ballot options: > > A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in > main > B non-free packages should always be prohibited in package depende

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

Steve Langasek writes: > As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question > with the following ballot options: > > A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in > main > B non-free packages should always be prohibited in package depende

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

Steve Langasek writes: > As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this > question with the following ballot options: > A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in > main > B non-free packages should always be prohibited in package dependen

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question with the following ballot options: A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in main B non-free packages should always be prohibited in package dependencies for main FD Whereas: 1

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: Call for Votes

On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 07:56:41PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > As previously agreed in the IRC meeting, I call for votes on this question > with the following ballot options: > A non-free packages as non-default alternatives should not be prohibited in > main > B non-free packages should a

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: counterargument

> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes: Ian> And from a practical point of view, I would prefer to make a Ian> choice that significantly eases collaboration with the GNU Ian> Project to one that slightly eases collaboration with Ian> proprietary software vendors. The more interesting

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: counterargument

I wrote: > In particular, I think Steve's example is one where we should > certainly not compromise our principles just because some proprietary > software distributors are being uncooperative. Our political > opponents, with whom we are making a practical compromise, are giving > those of us who

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: counterargument

Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: counterargument"): > Sorry for the delays in writing this up. ... > I believe the *spirit* of the policy requirement is twofold: I won't repeat myself too much, but as I have said I t

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: counterargument

Sorry for the delays in writing this up. Of the two options presented at , I am unequivocally in favor of option A and

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

forward 681419 http://git.donarmstrong.com/?p=debian-ctte.git;a=blob;f=681419_free_non_free_dependencies/681419_free_non_free_dependencies.org thanks I've been going through and doing summaries for the current status of the CTTE bugs; this is my understanding of where we are for 681419: * Issue

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main"): > Ian Jackson writes: > > Would we also want to do something to avoid the package managers > > complaining about nonexistent virtual packages ? I guess they are > > alread

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Ian Jackson writes: > Do we know what proportion of the existing references out of main into > non-free/contrib could be done this way ? I'm not sure; we'd have to check. However, it seems like it should handle all of them except any that would need a versioned dependency. > That would at leas

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main"): > Well, if we want to go this route, we could require use of a virtual > package in all cases like this. Then foo and foo-nonfree would both > Provide: foo (and probably Conflicts: foo),

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main

Package: tech-ctte Severity: normal As a Debian Policy delegate, I'm delegating to the Technical Committee the resolution of bugs #587279 and #616462. The current Policy wording is: In addition, the packages in main * must not require or recommend a package outside of main for c