On Thu, 2018-05-31 at 16:50 -0300, Freemor wrote: > Would supporting flatpak install count as recommending non-free software? Like > linking to addons.mozilla.org does. > > Is it even possible to create a "your-freedom" style flatpack?
brainblasted pointed out that most package managers including pacman may be configured to use arbitrary source repos - that is true but if the user re- configures the software from the default state, it is of no concern to the FSDG; so that is not the issue - but if in it's default state, the program will actively list and assist installing non-free programs then that would be an FSDG problem in pacman's default state, the 'your-freedom' packages prevents known non-free packages - this is possible becasue the default repo package set is well-curated and known, and fairly stable - for most of the third-party repos i have seen, the task of maintaining a comprehensive blacklist would be intractable to impossible - flathub is not one that i looked at; but most of them are not at all curated and more like the AUR, allowing literally *anyone* to publish packages On Thu, 2018-05-31 at 15:59 -0400, Christopher Davis wrote: > there could be a completely free flatpak repo to use instead > of flathub. Purism is interested in getting one of these set up for > PureOS, > and I've mentioned the idea of splitting Flathub's nonfree apps off > from the free apps > so an FSDG-compliant distro could use Flathub that is the most reasonable solution but would be a lot of work and afterwards, someone still needs to host it and maintain it On Thu, 2018-05-31 at 16:01 -0400, Christopher Davis wrote: > Another option could be a flatpak-level patch that blocks nonfree > flatpaks from being installed, as flatpaks include license information > with them. another fine option perhaps, and probably much less work to implement; but again if like most of the repos ive seen, the licensing information is supplied by the uploader, and the uploader can be *anyone*, and so is not verified by a trusted curator, then it is not reliable information and renders the exercise pointless much like freemor, i consider third-party repos more troublesome than valuable but there is also a philosophical case to be made against container-based distribution (several actually) - the main argument given for these container deals is that it helps the developer support multiple distros by distributing a consistent pristine state mostly isolated from the system - that may be true but that is really should not seen as necessary - it is really not the place of the upstream to support *any* distro - regardless of any implementation decisions the upstream makes, the proper relationship between a distro and an a third- party upstream software is that: it is the job of the distro to support the upstream software on their distro, or drop it if it's dependencies are unsatisfiable or it is otherwise un-maintainable or brings little value to the distro there is nothing preventing any user from compiling anything they want; including 'gnome software' itself ('flatpak' is already in the repos) - put into context, there is no imperative for any distro to support *any* particular third-party program; *much less an entire package manager* with the can of worms that opens - so it's value-to-maintenance-effort ratio had better be positive to be considered for inclusion - that is why my main question was "how much work is this going to be to setup" because i consider its value to be on the low side if not negative i have expressed most if this before it hit the mailing list; so i will probably abstain from adding anything further to see what others have to say i think the only thing that should be ensured is that it is possible for an end user to compile 'gnome software' themselves - is there anything strictly preventing this? or is it just the case that the blacklist is preventing the arch package from installing?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.parabola.nu https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev