On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:32:45AM -0400, Bill Auger wrote: > i propose that each of those blacklisted programs should have a > detailed explanation as to what precisely are its problematical points > - they should also indicate whether or not a replacement exists in the > 'libre' or 'non-prism' repos and perhaps with a link to any relevant > discussion that took place regarding that package and ideally pointing > at the actual non-free components or privacy invading mechanism in the > code itself - in cases where no replacement exists it would be > reasonable to say why that is so (either it is technically not > possible or simply no one has had the time to do it yet) - in the > latter case it could also be added to the under-utilized "Package Todo > List" https://www.parabola.nu/todo/ which currently has exactly 3 > items on it from 2010 - without such information only the person who > blacklisted the package knows why and so it will probably never be > rescued
+1 to this entire proposal. I would just add that there should also be a wiki page outlining the process of blacklisting packages that explicitly states these documentation requirements, to make the process more fluid in the future. -A -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ my GPG Public Key: https://files.grapentin.org/.gpg/public.key ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
