Karl, Thanks for that. My thoughts exactly, although I had overlooked step 3b. I wonder whether it would be best for the people that found the suspected non-free to raise the bug report. If/ when agreed, we would also need to edit the wiki, so that KK's 5 steps are listed on the non-free page (I suggest).
Anybody else got any thoughts? Cheers, Chris. On 07/07/07, Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Andrew wrote: > Hi, all. > > As the Package Freedom Verification work continues to grow (phew!), we > are more and more likely to find suspected non-free packages > <http://wiki.gnewsense.org/Main/SuspectedNonFree> . > > So that we can ensure that something is done about these packages, do > people think it would be a good idea to file bug reports for each > suspected package? This way, an owner can be assigned, and progress can > be checked. We could then decide on and document a strategy for dealing > with the aforementioned packages. 1. I think it should work something like this: 2. Non free package found 3. Bug filed against package in gnewsense 3b. optional bug filed with debian if its still relevant to them. 4a. builder changed to not build/remove the package OR 4b. builder changed to edit package to free it. 5. bug marked fixed. kk > > What does anyone thing? > > Cheers, > > Chris. > -- Karl Goetz User of gNewSense: Free as in Freedom - http://www.gnewsense.org Australian Ubuntu users team - http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AustralianTeam User of Debian, The Universal Operating System - http://www.debian.org _______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
_______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
