[Dev] Policy for Package Quarantines

Joshua Haase hahj87 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 20 18:37:43 GMT 2017

"Nicolás A. Ortega" <deathsbreed at themusicinnoise.net> writes:

> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 09:36:25PM -0400, Luke Shumaker wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:28:50 -0400,
>> Nicolás A. Ortega wrote:
>> As attractive as that proposal is, it doesn't allow for quickly
>> handling uncontroversially nonfree packages.

Why not? The default action is to "quarantine" it (quick response).
Then it gets documented and it may be proved that the package is
non-free or not by using a central place.

>> And really, the Parabola dev community hasn't generally been receptive
>> to big ol' processes they have to step through.

I think the process should be as automated as posible.
I'd be willing to work on that, maybe integrating this flow to

>> > The most important thing I want to be taken away from this is that
>> > information on the freedom issues of a package should be *easily
>> > available*. I shouldn't have to be asking absolutely everyone in the
>> > community who has the actual links so I can verify for my own eyes.
>> > What's more, the more eyes we have on the issue the more information we
>> > can obtain and the faster we can solve things.


>> In blacklist.txt, there is a field for a 'ref' referencing Debian,
>> LibrePlanet, Savannah, Fedora, or Parabola (our bug tracker), for
>> where you can read about justification for it being blacklisted.
>> Perhaps we should make this field mandatory?


More information about the Dev mailing list