Michał Masłowski <[email protected]> writes: > Hello. We have discussed some changes in the thread of [0], this > message lists what we could do to implement them. > > Please vote and comment on the draft guidelines, they need some > improvements. > > [0] https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/pipermail/dev/2012-November/000974.html > > Package freedom guidelines wiki page draft > ========================================== > > These guidelines document our interpretation of what software should not > be included in the distribution according to the > [[Parabola/GNU_Linux_Social_Contract]] and how the included software > should be provided. > > Not all software that complies with these guidelines should be included > in Parabola. Good reasons for inclusion are the package being included > in Arch or being useful for you.
i don't understand the wording, not all the software that complies with *our guidelines* should be included? is something wrong with our guidelines then? :P > == All nontrivial works in binary packages are free software, free > cultural works or GNU FDL-licensed documentation == > > All nontrivial non-license works should be > [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software] or > [http://freedomdefined.org/Definition free cultural works] unless they > are correctly GNU FDL-licensed documentation ("correctly" implies that > e.g. a manual that consists only of invariant sections isn't accepted). > > == PKGBUILDs do not fetch nonfree sources == > > Use SRCBUILDs to make free source archives. Do not remove nonfree files > in <code>build()</code>, removing recommendation of nonfree software is > acceptable. > > == PKGBUILD repositories are free == > > Do not include patches containing nontrivial nonfree files (use > <code>rm</code> in SRCBUILDs to remove them). > > == Incompatible PKGBUILDs/source packages are blacklisted == > > No included PKGBUILD should provide a package incompatible with these > guidelines. Some in non-current revisions of the repositories might do > this, these revisions are known to be unsupported and not recommended > for use. > > All blacklist changes are discussed on the > [email protected] list before being committed. Unless it's > obvious (not only for the original reporter) that the package won't be > free, an issue report should be left open for it until the problem is > fixed and the package is unblacklisted or it's known that no useful free > work can be based on parts of the package. i think we should include "discuss on gnu-linux-libre" and "contact upstream" provisions here too. > == Sources for all packages are provided by the repo server == > > Having only the PKGBUILD repositories, all binary packages, a source > archive downloaded from the server and no network access it should be > possible to build practically the same binary package as provided by > us. > > Issues to decide > ================ > > - building packages from sources > > I don't want to change this in TeXLive-related packages, they often > just provide binaries and difficult to build sources for > non-arch-specific things. so the texlive distribution is non reproducible? i think we should consider this a bug then... how do other distros build texlive? > - the FDL exception > > Is there a better way to express our support for free culture without > including too many nonfree works? > > Are there non-FDL-licensed nonfree works that we want to include? > > Or maybe instead we should have an exception for GNU packages? GNU > Emacs includes many separate nonfree works of opinion. Most nonfree > FDL manuals that I know about are of GNU packages with GNU cover texts > making them nonfree. i can hear some troll calling us hyppocrites here :P i think fdl-licensed manuals and such can be problematic but it's not the same as, for instance, cc-licensed works that are all or nothing. > - recommend SRCBUILDs or another similar solution? > > - rewrite histories of our PKGBUILD repositories to not include nonfree files rewriting history makes me feel in 1984. i consider all commits previous to HEAD as bugs. > Blacklist of source packages > ============================ > > The aim is to rewrite blacklist.txt to list source packages and have the > binary packages to remove automatically found by dbscripts. db-sync does this automatically with a simple "fetch everything free From arch, remove the rest" (that also makes it self-healing, it's been more than a year without repo breakages), is there a problem with the current approach? > - write scripts for two-side conversion; should PKGBUILDs be sourced on > repo (potential security issues)? > > - verify that bin-to-source < blacklist.txt | source-to-bin gives the > same file: blacklist more packages, write more replacements > > - run bin-to-source on the blacklist and commit it > > - change all wiki pages mentioning it > > - close relevant bugs if there are any > > We could do the recfile blacklist rewrite after this change is done. > > Deprecate rePKGBUILD > ==================== > > Remove their mentions from the wiki, remove the scripts from libretools > if no one has non-Parabola uses for them. what's the reason for this? > > Check all libre packages for nonfree software in abslibre or sources > ==================================================================== > > They already remove it from binary packages, so this should be easy to > check. i don't understand this part > > Make sources of all packages available > ====================================== > > - have a script fetching them with errors posted to the list there's one such script on dbscripts > > - check the completeness of sources listed on repo > > - have scripts to fetch these sources from repo instead of ones listed > in PKGBUILDs > > Report and fix related bugs > =========================== > > I'll report and implement some of features needed for these changes > if you support it. > > I'll consider the voting and discussion finished not before 2013/01/07. i'm ok with the rest, but please tell us in which way we can help -- .oO)
pgptSRE3nXLbO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
