"Nicolás A. Ortega" <[email protected]> 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 parabola-web. >> > 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. +1 >> 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? +1 _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
