Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

John H. Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > my experience with the installer .deb's is limited mostly to the > installers made for pine and djbware. > > they download the source, patch the source, then build the source. the > result is a .deb. that .deb can then be installed. since it is a

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 04:56:51PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a > > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in > > non-free? For instance, why the

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

On Tue 16:34, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Supposedly, it already does: > Actually, my boss just installed that the other day and it apparently does work well. How much of it is just WINE is a pretty wrapper, I'm not to certain. -- ---

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 13:54 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may Supposedly, it already does: needed by users. But I'm sure we can found 3000 companies that would switch over

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

> > I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian, > > should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free > > software, when installing it. > > the ones that i am familir with do exactly that. i cannot speak for all > of them, though. If they all works this way

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > my experience with the installer .deb's is limited mostly to the > installers made for pine and djbware. Strictly speaking those are not installers. The source is available in the debian archive, we just can't distribute compiled binaries from it. Installers for grat

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

I don't need to be CC:'d, thanks. Mathieu Roy wrote: > > Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may > have a free software in contrib that will install it, without the > possibility to remove it with the standard debian tools. my experience with the installer .deb's is l

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > Op di 02-09-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mathieu Roy: > > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a > > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in > > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does n

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a > true debian package in non-free,

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: [snip] > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a > true debian package in

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

Op di 02-09-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mathieu Roy: > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a > true debian package in non-free, to benefit t

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

"John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > > On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > > > > >He might even be running vrms - and vrms > > > >will not

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > > >He might even be running vrms - and vrms > > >will not complain about the non-free software he has installed! > > > > Th

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 23:40, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On 31 Aug 2003 17:51:42 +0200, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since > > these packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I > > think that even if there's

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:23:09 -0400, Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just my 2 cents. I completely agree with Steve. If the only > freeness of an installer is being able to use it as a staring point > to make another installer, then that'

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

On 31 Aug 2003 17:51:42 +0200, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since > these packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I > think that even if there's no non-free stuff within the packages > themselves, the result

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 20:27 US/Eastern, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: Random package: Provides: non-free-installer vrms: Conflicts: non-free-installer No, because that's not how vrms works. vrms just mails you (once a month, I believe) which non-free packages are installed. It also informs

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > To address the original point, however: > > > I do believe that policy is correct in it's reasoning in this instance. By > > my understanding, packages go into contrib for one of th

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > >He might even be running vrms - and vrms > >will not complain about the non-free software he has installed! > > Then file a bug report (on vrms). Perhaps i

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

This one time, at band camp, Bruce Sass wrote: >Exactly. What if a generalised DFSG-free software installer used a >separate config file to download, debianize (using dh_make templates), >then install the resulting package (most of it non-free because such a >scheme should not be necessary for fre

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Cameron Patrick wrote: > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > | > When your conclusion is at odds with reality you should rethink your > | > argument... if Debian was to start classifying packages based on > | > the probable or possible results of

vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote: He might even be running vrms - and vrms will not complain about the non-free software he has installed! Then file a bug report (on vrms). Perhaps it'd even be useful if installer packages somehow marked that they've installed non-fre

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

On Sunday, Aug 31, 2003, at 14:47 US/Eastern, Bruce Sass wrote: contrib would disappear and a case could be made to place all editors in non-free because they can be used to create non-free stuff. That's silly. There is a difference between "package automatically brings in non-free stuff" and "pac

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

Mathieu Roy dijo [Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:23:40PM +0200]: > So I do not agree that "Contrib is a ok place for installers". While > basically these installer are free software, it's a little bit > hypocritical to claim that these package contains free software. > > Finally, someone who install the

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: | > When your conclusion is at odds with reality you should rethink your | > argument... if Debian was to start classifying packages based on | > the probable or possible results of using the package, instead of | > the code in the pa

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > Ah, reductio ad absurdum. Such a wonderful means of demonstrating that you > can't think up a decent argument, so you'll take something to it's illogical > extreme to try and scare some people. more accurately, it is a useful tool

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 08:45:37PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Apart from item (2), which I can't think of a major example of at present > > (OOo is in main because they just don't build the Java parts, AIUI), > > Still in contrib, last I knew. Whoops, it is too. I thought I'd left contrib

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > To address the original point, however: > I do believe that policy is correct in it's reasoning in this instance. By > my understanding, packages go into contrib for one of three reasons: > 1) They strictly depend on non-free sof

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:47:11PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote: > On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > <...> > > But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since these > > packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I think that > > even if there's no non-free stuff

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: <...> > But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since these > packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I think that > even if there's no non-free stuff within the packages themselves, the > result of the installation of th

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > Em Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:48:46 +0200, Pierre Machard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > escreveu: > > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:23:40PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > [...] > > > So I do not agree that "Contrib is a ok place for installers". While > > >

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

Em Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:48:46 +0200, Pierre Machard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:23:40PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > [...] > > So I do not agree that "Contrib is a ok place for installers". While > > basically these installer are free software, it's a little bit > > hy

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

Pierre Machard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In other words you do not agree with the Debian policy. It's quite > amazing since according to : > > http://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=yeupou%40gnu.org > > You passed the Philosophy and Procedure. There are many developers not agreing completly

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:23:40PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: [...] > So I do not agree that "Contrib is a ok place for installers". While > basically these installer are free software, it's a little bit > hypocritical to claim that these package contains free software. From the policy : Examples

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > Hi > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:13:17PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > > > > I've noticed there's quite a few almost-empty packages lurking in > > the archive, whose sole purpose seems to be to download non-free > > software and install it on a