Subject: Bug#3236: auto-pgp in non-free, mailcrypt in misc

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 96 20:23 EDT

Package: (ftp.debian.org)

I am a little nitpicky here, but it is not too consistent that auto-pgp sits
in non-free, and mailcrypt sits in binary-{i386,all}/misc. Both are GPLed and
I recall that Ian J. wanted to have auto-pgp in non-free as pgp has to live
there.

Now, aren't we all in favour of pgp? Shouldn't we foster it's use? Shouldn't
auto-pgp be moved out of the closet and into the limelight, next to mailcrypt?

Comments? Ian?

--
Dirk Eddelb"uttel                             http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd

---

From: Guy Maor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 22:35:33 -0500 (CDT)

>From bug 1672:

The dpkg maintainer asked for it to be placed in non-free.  As it
happens the dpkg maintainer and the author of auto-pgp are the same
person, me :-), but the reason I asked for it to be moved is not
because I don't want it in Debian (I do), but because it depends on
PGP, which has to go in non-free.

In general, putting X in a higher priority level than Y when X depends
on Y is a bad thing from the point of view of dselect's dependency
management.

It can go back into the main distribution when I get around to
producing a Debian version of PGP 2.3a which has enough of the bugs
fixed to be suitable for use.

Ian.
<<<<<<

Guy

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 96 22:47 EDT

Ian>  We can't have packages that depend on non-free packages in the main
  Ian> distribution.  This will cause dselect problems for people without
  Ian> non-free.

Right. That's why I reported the bug on mailcrypt being in
unstable/binary-{all, i386}/misc.

  Ian> What we need is a free pgp to put in the main distribution.  I haven't
  Ian> had time to do this yet - ie, package up 2.3a.

That would be nice.

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 02:12 BST

> auto-pgp be moved out of the closet and into the limelight, next to mailcrypt?

We can't have packages that depend on non-free packages in the main
distribution.  This will cause dselect problems for people without
non-free.

What we need is a free pgp to put in the main distribution.  I haven't
had time to do this yet - ie, package up 2.3a.

Ian.

---

From: Marek Michalkiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 22:02:55 +0200 (MET DST)

> distribution.  This will cause dselect problems for people without

In contrib maybe?  BTW, elm (which is free) recommends pgp too.

> had time to do this yet - ie, package up 2.3a.

Maybe we should try to ask the author for permission?  (For non-US
distribution anyway, because of these silly US software patents.)

Marek

---

From: [email-masked] (David Frey)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 23:09:52 +0200 (MET DST)

Dirk> Ian> We can't have packages that depend on non-free packages in the main
Dirk> Ian> distribution.  This will cause dselect problems for people without
Dirk> Ian> non-free.
Dirk> 
Dirk> Right. That's why I reported the bug on mailcrypt being in
Dirk> unstable/binary-{all, i386}/misc.
Dirk> 
Dirk> Ian> What we need is a free pgp to put in the main distribution. I haven't
Dirk> Ian> had time to do this yet - ie, package up 2.3a.
Dirk> 
Dirk> That would be nice.

Hmm. This won't work legally. The US citizens would have an licensing problem
with RSA Inc (this was the main incentive to release pgp 2.6.*)

#ifdef NASTYCOMMENT

Perhaps we should move the main mirror into e.g. U.K and introduce a
non-us directory?

#endif	/* Sorry, couldn't resist */

David
--
David Frey <[email-masked]>|Microsoft isn't the answer...it's the QUESTION.
Schlieren, Switzerland        |``No'' is the answer.
PGP-Key available on request  |Use Debian GNU/Linux!