Subject: Re: Binary-only packages

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 96 13:57 PDT

I would put the binary-only packages in "contrib". We can't give the user
any means to assure that binary-only packages are free of trojan-horses,
etc., so I don't think they should be given the same status as the usual
Debian software. Not having the source available goes against the philosophy
of the rest of the system, of course, so placing the package in "contrib"
would indicate that as well.

	Bruce
--
Pixar's Toy Story: Over 1/3 Billion dollars world box office so far.

Bruce Perens AB6YM          [email-masked]            http://www.hams.com/

---

From: Michael Meskes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 12:17:58 +0200 (MET DST)

> I would put the binary-only packages in "contrib". We can't give the user

Is contrib on CDs, too?

> would indicate that as well.

My personal problem is LyX, a fine program under GPL. But it requieres
xforms which is available only as binary. Does this create any problem, if
xforms is put in contrib?

Michael

-- 
Michael Meskes                   |    _____ ________ __  ____
[email-masked] |   / ___// ____/ // / / __ \___  __________
[email-masked]                  |   \__ \/ /_  / // /_/ /_/ / _ \/ ___/ ___/
[email-masked]                |  ___/ / __/ /__  __/\__, /  __/ /  (__  )
Use Debian Linux!		 | /____/_/      /_/  /____/\___/_/  /____/

---

From: Sven Rudolph <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 01:46:24 +0200

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Bruce Perens) writes:

> Debian software.

Even though we cannot guarantee the absence of trojan-horses anyway
this is a good point.

However when this contrib rule superseedes the non-free rule,
programmes that aren't freely redistributable may appear in contrib
because they are binary-only. This should be mentioned in the
guidelines, and causes more work for CD-sellers.

	Sven
-- 
Sven Rudolph <[email-masked]> ; WWW : http://www.sax.de/~sr1/

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 17:13 PDT

Bruce:
> We can't give the user any means to assure that binary-only packages are
> free of trojan-horses...

> Even though we cannot guarantee the absence of trojan-horses anyway

Notice that I said "give the user any means to assure", not "guarantee".
Given the source, the user has some means of assuring that there are
no trojan horses.

> because they are binary-only.

Oh yes, I no doubt confused someone. Let me make that more clear.

FREELY-REDISTRIBUTABLE SOFTWARE that is in binary-only form goes in CONTRIB.
If it's not freely-redistributable, it goes in non-free.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: Doug Geiger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 21:38:18 -0400 (EDT)

> guidelines, and causes more work for CD-sellers.

I don't think it does (or should) supersceede the non-free rule. Non-free
is for programs (binary-only or not) that aren't freely-distributable
(i.e. can't be put on a CD that would be sold). Binary-only programs that
are freely distributable would then go into contrib. Correct?

-- Run.exe
[email-masked] http://www.ntplx.net/~runexe/ Finger me for PGP key
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips 
over, pinning you underneath.  At night, the ice weasels come."
                -- Matt Groening