[Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?

[Samuel Verschelde]

Le mardi 15 mars 2011 21:30:05, Michael Scherer a écrit :
> Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 20:34 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
> > Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21
> > 
> > > Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted stuff,
> > > but do care about free licenses and do care about what it bring to
> > > them.
> > > 
> > > I do. Stormi do ( or seems to do ). And I think that given we decided
> > > to
> > > split PLF for that precise reason, there is more than 2 of us to care.
> > > 
> > > > Putting tainted packages in nonfree just causes more confusion
> > > > IMHO.
> > > 
> > > As much as the reverse, it all depends on what you tell to people
> > > about
> > > the repository, what they expect and what you prefer to highlight.
> > 
> > That's exactly why I suggested earlier in this thread that we need an
> > additional repo for 'tainted+non-free' packages, that's the only solution
> > that would satisfy every preference people might have and at the same
> > time make things clear for everyone (packagers, mirror maintainers,
> > users).
> 
> Instead of moving stuff in non-free, you move them in non-free +
> tainted. That just bring more headaches, and more complexity.
> 
> That's not a solution.

Well, that would be a real solution if we really wanted to flag those packages 
both as tainted and as non-free, as some people give more importance to the 
fact that it is tainted and others to the fact that it is non-free.

For now, I would propose either to put that package in non-free, explain to 
users that non-free packages may be tainted too, and envision after Mageia 1 
to add a new media if the current solution really doesn't work, and maybe 
require a meta-package from tainted  OR put it in tainted, explain that 
tainted can contain non-free packages, and require a dummy package from non-
free, as Anssi proposed (on a second thought, I think that second option is 
better).

Can we reach a decision ? (add this question to the next packagers meeting ?)

However, as the whole discussion seems to revolve around only one practical 
package, what would be even better would be convince and help upstream to 
solve the licensing issue (if that's feasible).

Best regards

Samuel Verschelde