[Mageia-dev] cinelerra/audiokonverter/arista (war Re: rehashing the faac issue)

Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+mageia at googlemail.com
Fri Nov 2 00:56:41 CET 2012

Hi Olivier, *,

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Olivier Blin <mageia at blino.org> wrote:
> Christian Lohmaier <lohmaier+mageia at googlemail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Wolfgang Bornath <molch.b at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> After reading all arguments again I must confess that I changed my
>>> opinion: Being consequent and following our road we need a
>>> /tainted-free and a /tainted-nonfree branch.
>> I still think this would be a very user-*un*friendly way to handle it.
> [...]
>> Much better would then be to create an "ugly" repo (in the spirit of
>> gstreamer) that contains the "doesn't fit into the other repos" stuff.
> That's just a naming issue then, are you just suggesting to rename the
> "tainted-nonfree" repository proposal as "ugly"?

No - my point was that I think a split of tainted into tainted-free
and tainted-nonfree is pointless and not user-friendly.
I only want one repository for the "problematic" stuff.

Not naming it "tainted" is just because what ends up there is not only
stuff that really is tainted, but also packages that just depend on
tainted ones.

> If we go for the "tainted + nonfree" way, its definition should be that
> it contains packages that:
> (1) are both tainted and not free software
> or
> (2) packages having a hard requirement on packages from (1)

See - and that from my POV is pointless. so the tainted+nonfree
contains a happy mixture of tainted and non-tainted, all variants of
free to tainted-nonfree.

I just don't see the point in splitting "tainted" repo that way (other
than that bureaucratic thing that I as a user think is superfluous)


More information about the Mageia-dev mailing list