[Dev] [libretools - Feature Request #2403] [libremakepkg]: eradicate mksource() from abslibre

[labs at parabola.nu]

Issue #2403 has been updated by bill-auger.


freemor wrote:
>
> Going the other way would require us to strip steps out of
> prepare to move them into mksource() for every package we
> build.

well not every package; but every one that replaces something in
arch - the parity with the arch PKGBUILDs could still be
maintained that way - only the "librefication" commands would
need to be in mksource() - doing so could actually make the
diffs cleaner than they are now


freemor wrote:
> Since we probably don't want to re-write makepkg, the
> problem with this is we then have a clean source that the
> PKGBUILD may fail to build

yea thats my thinking - any changes from the current workflow
would entail some modification to makepkg - at least we
understand now why mksource() exists - it just was not fully
utilized for every package; probably because it is such a huge
take


freemor wrote:
> People coming from Arch are going to be confused if the usual
> pull the PKGBUILD, run makepkg approach fails. 

makepkg would not fail with the current workflow because the
cleaned tarballs are published at the location where the PKGBUILD
expects them to be - as i understand, the mksource() function
only runs if that tarball is not found on the server


freemor wrote:
> Trying to debug from pre-cleaned
> sources could be problematic too

thats certainly true; but simply changing the URL of the
expected cleaned source-ball in the sources array would force
mksource() to run again - AFAIK the newly generated source-ball
only gets published upon librerelease


freemor wrote:
>    a.) complicate things. 
>    b.) kick the unclean source further down the road. 

i dont think mksource+librefetch: would be "complicated" - it
would just be a shit-ton of work to sort the librefication
commands out of prepare() and into mksource() for every libre
package; but presumably the tools already have that
functionality to handle it

what would be complex is modifying makepkg to create the tarball
after prepare() has run, and to skip over prepare() if
pre-cleaned source-balls are detected - if we were writing
makepkg from scratch, i think that would be most reasonable from
the engineering perspective; but it is a significant deviation
from arch; but going to be the case no matter how this is done

approach B would surely be less work; but that is a deviation
from the arch tools also - approach A has the added advantage of
making the diffs against arch much cleaner for evermore into the
future

if librefetch does its magic transparently, without manual
steps, it probably is the best approach as a long-term investment

* the deviation from arch is constrained to libretools
* the tooling already exists and is working well for hyperbola
* cleaner diffs
* users who run libremakepkg on versions ahead of parabola will
get a cleaned tarball

----------------------------------------
Feature Request #2403: [libremakepkg]: eradicate mksource() from abslibre
https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/2403#change-12952

* Author: bill-auger
* Status: info needed
* Priority: discussion
* Assignee: 
* Category: 
----------------------------------------
related to forum thread https://labs.parabola.nu/boards/18/topics/125

IIRC when discussing the 'ruby' package, we concluded that it was probably intended per the FSDG, to provide complete and pre-cleaned source-balls to the distro users; which entails the devs to keep some of the libre-fications tools private

the FSDG does not require support for versions of 'foo' that were not included in any distro release however; but OTOH, this PKGBUILD contains instructions for downloading known non-free software

on the third hand (the philosophical hand), the 'gist' of the four freedoms is not about possessing or sharing non-free software; but that the user is able to do with it as they see fit - if the only thing that one wishes to do with that software is to merely posses it or share it, then anything redistributable would satisfy the 'gist' of the four freedoms for that person

probably the simplest way to resolve this class of issue, is to add a note to the PKGBULID with sed above every instance of 'mksource()', asking the reader to ignore it and ask a parabola dev to publish the intermediate source-ball, if they are building ahead of the current release; then to publish the missing source-ball for any enthusiastic user who asks for one - a better solution to this class of issue, would be for the PKGBUILD to explaining how to run mksource() and have the mksource() function create the source-ball with expected libre name in the sources() array - if that does not conflict with the FSDG - an even better solution to this class of issue, is to eliminate it by eradicating mksource() from abslibre somehow, even if that is simply moving the PKGBUILD to a private git branch

this incident is not a peculiar though - it is currently systematic AFAIK; so i consulted the FSDG:

  "A free system distribution must not steer users towards obtaining any nonfree information
for practical use, or encourage them to do so. The system should have no repositories 
for nonfree software and no specific recipes for installation of particular nonfree programs."

there is another clause that might suggest that this use case is within the guidelines; although it is in the "Documentation" section

  "In general, something that helps people who already use nonfree software
to use the free software better with it is acceptable,
but something that encourages users of the free software to install nonfree software is not."

libre-fications would seem to fit into that documentation exception - id say the key point is that such scripts do not install the program "for practical use" - the use-case in which the user is interested, is to download a non-free tarball, and to liberate it, without viewing or executing any of the files within it; for the sole purpose of using the cleaned sources in freedom - it would seems better to instruct people how to liberate non-free software rather than impeding their curiosity or ambition; though it may snag upon some FSDG caveat 

some options:

* should consult the FSDG mailing list about this grey area
* put these on the wiki as documentation, instead of in PKGBUILDs
* libretools could be made to download the file into memory instead of writing a hard copy
* hide all such scripts at the cost of impeding enthusiastic users who want to help




-- 
-- ^^^^ Type your reply above this line ^^^^ --
--     Please keep the 'Subject' as it is    --

You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: http://labs.parabola.nu/my/account