Chris Andrew wrote: > 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,
Also everyone: could you 'sign' comments on the SuspectedNonFree page, it will make it easier to know who needs to be asked about packages. kk > > Chris. > > On 07/07/07, *Karl Goetz* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
