Web lists-archives.com

Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:40:15PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I would like to shelve this suggestion.  The concept of
> antimetapackages can certainly be used this way from a technical point
> of view, but I think the goal there is controversial.  Maintainers of
> packages currently in main would probably resist the introduction of
> antimetapackage tags.
> Whereas the goal of enabling finer control over nonfree is, I think,
> fairly uncontroversial.

I'm not so sure whether this goal is uncontroversial, this is Debian… ;)

> So do you think we should proceed with that ?

Please not like this. while I *might* share the goal, I think this 
implementation is IMHO rather horrible. "antimetapackages" sounds unclear at
best and the whole concept is *way* too complicated.

plus, we have something complicated which can achieve the wanted effect today
already: apt pining.

I think Debian has better things to do than working on fine grained control
over non-free stuff. Obviously anybody is free to work on this, but I dont
think we should make our repositories, packages, policies and workflow soooo
much more complicated and harder to understand, for very little gain.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature