Bug#702734: [nvidia-detect] please move nvidia-detect out of non-free

[Filipus Klutiero]

On 2013-03-15 06:49, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> On 2013-03-13 03:48, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>> I don't mind the license. I'm just saying if we split nvidia-detect,
>> we'll have to clarify its license. It doesn't have a clear license
>> (which is technically already a small problem) today, but that won't be
>> a problem, as I'll happily license it under any terms requested.
> I've now added
> +# Copyright © 2008-2011 Filipus Klutiero<chealer at gmail.com>
> +# Copyright © 2011-2013 Andreas Beckmann<anbe at debian.org>
> and put it under the GPL2+ (as the current packaging is GPL2+, too)

Thank you
>
>> So you're saying changing the section requires splitting from n-g-d?
> I don't think a (binary) package in contrib can be built from a source
> package in non-free as that is a different "archive area"

Hum. I guess you're right :-/
>
>> I suspected that splitting the source packages would make updates more
>> complicated, although I can't appreciate the cost.
> Probably have the pciids shipped in some package and have nvidia-detect
> build-depend on this and just copy the current file.
>
>
>> I agree it's "fine". I really meant it would be *better* to keep
>> nvidia-detect up-to-date.
>> I'm not sure a backport for nvidia-detect is the intended use. I see
>> backports as appropriate for updates which could introduce breakage. If
>> we do ourselves a risk-free update, I think it should go directly in
>> stable.
> I don't think this qualifies for a stable update. There is
> "stable-updates" for packages that require frequent updates to stay
> useful in a stable release (e.g. virus scanners, tzdata, ...) without
> being security updates (that would be "stable/updates").
> Anything else could only go via stable-proposed-updates into the next
> point release and that should be important or serious bugfixes, not new
> features.

I believe this would qualify for stable-updates (volatile). I'm not an 
expert, and I can't point to a very similar case, but I see the case as 
fairly similar to virus scanners. The software cannot be designed in a 
way where it stays perfect for the duration of a release cycle, as it 
needs evolving data. The old version stays useful, but a new version is 
preferable.
>
>> But if we keep updates in backports anyway, then we could at
>> least prepare stable's nvidia-detect to suggest upgrading to backports
>> if the card is unknown (or refer to the wiki's version, or to NVIDIA's
>> website).
> Hmm, that could be an option for now.
>
> + echo "Newer driver releases may be available in backports."

Yes. FWIW, what I was suggesting was to suggest upgrading 
*nvidia-detect* to the backports version.