[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue

[andre999]

PhilippeDidier a écrit :
> andre999 a écrit :
[...]
>>
>> In sum, I agree with the proposal of this thread to allow non-free
>> packages in tainted repos.
>>
> The problem :
> In Tainted repo we can find now vlc-tainted, gstreamer-tainted,
> mencoder-tainted... they are free indeed (because built without faac)
>
> but what to do if we want to build them with faac : they are always
> tainted but become non-free too !
>
> For instance, with vlc (it's the same for mplayer or others) :
>
> 1) is it possible to have two versions of the same package in the same
> repo ?
> a vlc-free-tainted one (built with mp3 codec without faac) for strict
> opensource users
> and a vlc-nonfree-tainted one (built with mp3 decoder with faac) for
> ordinary users, with an information for strict opensource users to avoid it
>
> 2) or must we choose one version ... and then who will be satisfied
> only vlc-free-tainted (strict opensource users will be happy but other
> ordinary users can't work on aac files)
> only vlc-nonfree-tainted (everybody is happy except the strict
> opensource users that can no more even hear mp3 files with vlc...)
>

Please note :  Whatever the repo, if there are 2 almost identical 
packages, whatever the difference, they have to have different names, or 
one would replace the other.
So we could theoretically use only one set of repos, without changing 
any package names.  (Not that I recommend it.)
That would probably make it trickier to ensure that free/open source 
packages without distribution constraints don't contain non-free or 
contrained dependancies, as well as more confusing for users, but that 
doesn't affect the package names.

Currently you might notice that some packages in tainted contain 
"tainted" after mga* (in the revision part of the full package name), 
and with a corresponding package in core with the same name except 
without the word "tainted".  That is one way to deal with packages 
with/without tainted components.
Something similar has been done in a few cases to distinguish 
free/nonfree versions of a package.

Personnally, I would favour putting "tainted" or "nonfree" (or rather an 
abbreviated form, say "[nf]" or "[tnt]") at the end of the main part of 
the package name.
(We could even do this for those packages without free/nonfree or 
free/tainted versions.)
By putting this in the main part of the package name, there will never 
be something like a tainted package replacing a core package during 
updates, which can happen now.  We could use the provides keyword to 
allow the user to select which type of a particular package they prefer.

A nice secondary effect of this, if we do this for all non-free and 
tainted packages, is that wherever we place the package file, the name 
indicates its' category.  Without having to look inside.  We could even 
have the build system automatically adding such tags.
It would make it easier for confirmed free-only or unconstrained-only 
users to avoid unwanted packages.

> If we can't satisfy everybody, we have to choose who must be satisfied,
> and why !...

But we can ... almost :)

-- 
André