[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue

[nicolas vigier]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2012, Colin Guthrie wrote:

> 'Twas brillig, and Guillaume Rousse at 03/10/12 08:40 did gyre and gimble:
> > Le 02/10/2012 23:58, PhilippeDidier a écrit :
> >> If the problem is really not soluble inside Mageia we can ask for a
> >> third party repo (guys from Blogdrake already provide FAAC, handbrake
> >> and cinerella... may we ask them to rebuild upon FAAC some Mageia's rpms
> >> ? the spec files are ready for this!)
> > It is perfectly soluble, and we don't need anyone else. If you reread
> > the thread, there is a consensus to use the tainted repository for
> > hosting it, provided some minor changes to its content definition first.
> 
> Just as a possible solution here (which might actually make life easier
> generally and perhaps even see the deprecation of the non-free
> repository completely....
> 
> Could we add a "license blacklist" (or whitelist) feature to URMI?

This is an interesting idea.

For tainted/not tainted, we need to have separate repositories, so that
mirror owners can easily filter tainted packages if needed.

For free/non-free, we mainly need users to be able to select what kind
of packages they want. This is currently done by having separate
repositories for free and non-free, but if urpmi had a feature to select
what kind of license you want, I think we could have both free and
non-free packages in the same repository.

However in that case, some package which can optionally be linked to
nonfree software will need to be present two times in the same repository:
one version of the package linked to nonfree software, and an other
version not linked to nonfree software. Maybe using different package
names.