[Dev] [RFC] Package freedom requirements clarification

Luke T. Shumaker lukeshu at sbcglobal.net
Mon Nov 26 01:42:13 GMT 2012

At Sun, 25 Nov 2012 19:23:41 -0300,
Nicolás Reynolds wrote:
> Michał Masłowski <mtjm at mtjm.eu> 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

More information about the Dev mailing list