I agree with this course of action. One question tough: Would this require us to maintain a public repo with non-free sources?
Michał Masłowski <[email protected]> writes: > Hello. > > We have many free packages, many new ones added and some being found > nonfree and replaced. We also get questions why some packages are > included or not, some examples are nonfree game data (ND or NC) and > documentation being a nonfree cultural work (e.g. GNU manuals or POSIX > man pages; I'm probably the only user asking about these). > > I haven't found any specific policy clearly explaining what software (or > non-software work) is allowed and what isn't. The Social Contract [0] > is sometimes used to explain this, although it provides no answer other > than referring to the FSDG, while we have stricter unwritten > requirements on ND non-functional data. It is true that we have stricter requirements and we should make those statements public. > There are also Parabola- or Arch-specific packaging issues that > obviously aren't explained by the FSDG which I believe should be > documented. > > We solve some freedom-related issues on mips64el, while there is > completely no need for this when the x86 ports provide free PKGBUILDs > and sources for packages. > > Therefore I propose introducing the four rules listed below so we will > save developers' time by having these policies written and not having > multiple different interpretations of them and by making less changes > mips64el-specific. > > 0. Do not fetch nonfree sources in PKGBUILDs > > I believe this is needed for FSDG compliance. This can be implemented > using SRCBUILDs or similar technologies. Having patches containing > whole nontrivial nonfree files in abslibre is IMO also not acceptable. > > 1. Blacklist source packages/PKGBUILDs, not binary packages > > We shouldn't have PKGBUILDs providing non-FSDG packages. This would > include deprecating rePKGBUILDs. > > This change is also needed for the blacklist rewrite I proposed many > months ago. The recent blacklisting activity and questions for the > reasons why old packages were blacklisted remind me of this being > useful, I will update that proposal. > > Some possible benefits: > > - all PKGBUILDs are known to have worked at some time > > - builds are more reproducible, they don't depend on how the Arch > packages with nonfree parts were built > > - non-x86 ports don't have to do the same changes separately nor merge > them > > - no need to split a PKGBUILD for a single package that was replaced > (this currently would save much time for mips64el KDE builds) > > Why I don't consider rePKGBUILDs important: > > - modern non-mips64el machines are fast, while mips64el already needs to > build the package from source > > - we have multiple active x86_64 packages, i686 packages can be built > too on x86_64 hosts > > Examples of affected packages: sqlite, kdebase, kdeutils, kdenetwork. > > 2. Accept only free cultural works and GNU FDL-licensed documentation > > I.e. require all nontrivial non-license works to comply with [1] or [2] > unless they are correctly FDL-licensed documentation (so e.g. a manual > that consists only of invariant sections isn't accepted). > > Is there a better way to express our support for free culture without > including too many nonfree works? > > 3. Provide sources for all packages > > We have source tarballs for some packages. Should these sources be > complete (i.e. so having only abs, all binary packages, the source > tarball and no network access it is possible to build the binary package > From exactly the same source)? I believe that they should, this might > need VCS packaging standards changes. > > This change would benefit from scripts to use our source repos instead > of PKGBUILD-specified mirrors (these aren't always online when repo is, > some URLs have broken while the package needs building on mips64el or is > available on x86), to check the completeness of the source repo and to > upload the source when releasing a package. > > > Any questions or comments? > > [0] https://wiki.parabolagnulinux.org/Parabola/GNU_Linux_Social_Contract > [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > [2] http://freedomdefined.org/Definition > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
pgpltE5ocYTGK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
