[Mageia-dev] Build-in or stand-alone module for X to support Y

[Maarten Vanraes]

Op zaterdag 10 december 2011 13:12:52 schreef Kamil Rytarowski:
> Hello!
> 
> Situation:
> A package X may have support for a package Y, by a module as a build in
> X or stand-alone package. All modules are possible to turn-on and to
> turn-off in a menu of X.
> 
> And there is a discussion because there is no Y at all in Mageia.
> Person A says:
> - include the module, even if there is no Y in Mageia (and maybe never
> will be included), because an end-user can install Y from alternative
> source or compile it from sources; and don't add Suggests/Requires for Y
> in the package, because it's obvious that this is to support Y; also
> installing Y from alternative sources/self-compilation is much simpler
> than reinstalling X with support for Y
> Person B says:
> - don't include the module, because Y is a dependency for the module of
> X - and we don't ship broken packages that aren't self-contained; so it
> must be excluded from X or the nobody has package Y and maintain it
> 
> Neither A nor B want to work with Y package.
> 
> Who is right?

imho, if Y is wanted by some people, and X works more of less fine without Y 
even if it's support is compiled, and sometimes a get-Y package is fine.

imho it's maintainer's preference, if maintainer is fine to also "support the 
Y-module for X" even if depends on Y and Y is not allowed in mageia, or even 
if Y is in nonfree... it's fine by me.

let's get into specifics:

eg:

X = eduke32 (free)
Y = content from CDROM (non-redistributable and must be bought)
Y' = eduke32-hrp (nonfree, but redistributable, may arguably depend on Y, may 
in future become free, company holding the license of the few files has gone 
away, the few files may be redone or become GPL-compatible)
Y'' = demo-data (nonfree, but redistributable)
(also there are other mods who may serve as Y''')

Y' supposedly doens't work without Y; but maybe it does more or less
Y'' is shareware

what users want is usually X + Y'

thus in such cases i want to provide X in core, Y' in nonfree and perhaps Y'' 
in nonfree as well.

this may all seem complicated, but:

businesses aren't necessarily wrong, i mean, they provide programs for 
windows/mac, if we want them to also provide for linux, we should make a step 
towards them.

furthermore, any step towards opensource should be encouraged, thus i feel 
that "free engines" should still be free.

i think a README.install.urpmi should be attached to those and noted that Y is 
required for it. furthermore Y' should be suggested, even if it's in nonfree 
repos.

just my €0.02