At Sun, 25 Nov 2012 19:23:41 -0300, Nicolás Reynolds wrote: > Michał Masłowski <[email protected]> writes: > > 1. Blacklist source packages/PKGBUILDs, not binary packages > > > > We shouldn't have PKGBUILDs providing non-FSDG packages. This would > > include deprecating rePKGBUILDs. > > > > This change is also needed for the blacklist rewrite I proposed many > > months ago. The recent blacklisting activity and questions for the > > reasons why old packages were blacklisted remind me of this being > > useful, I will update that proposal. > > i think this should be coded into PBS: > > * we'll get pkgbuild updates directly from upstream and merge them with > our freedom-related and/or port changes > > * this can be done by automated tools so it's less boring work for us > and the intermediate probably-unfree-steering pkgbuilds won't be > published > > * your listed benefits
Noted! That is how PBS is currently designed to work. FWIW, that is also why I want to have the source name for a package embedded into the branch name; it means you don't have to mess around with configuring multiple remotes when doing this kind of work. > discussing freedom related issues with upstream (without trolling) is > better. we had discussed this with encyclomundi when the syslog-ng guys > got angry because we blacklisted them iirc, and also guestone reported a > mislicensed art for a game that would go unnoticed if we had just > blacklisted it. Yeah, they got angry because we blacklisted them without any notification. What was weird is that someone said they were trying to talk with them--I even read a draft of the email. I guess it never got sent. Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
