Re: icecat or/and firefox?
On 28 January 2014 06:48, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 11:52 +, Ian Malone wrote: On 27 January 2014 05:36, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 01/27/2014 05:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: Hi, Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free version firefox. I'd argue it's *less* free since it seeks to restrict what you can do: Congratulations! You are the millionth person to regurgitate this entirely fruitless argument on the internet. You win no prize. I'm not regurgitating it, it's my response to reading paragraphs of sophistry that seek to persuade people they are better of if they are prevented from doing something. It seeks to remove choice. Maybe there are responses to it, but please don't accuse me of parroting when I've made my own decision. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
On 28 January 2014 07:05, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 22:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 11:52 +, Ian Malone wrote: On 27 January 2014 05:36, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 01/27/2014 05:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: Hi, Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free version firefox. I'd argue it's *less* free since it seeks to restrict what you can do: Congratulations! You are the millionth person to regurgitate this entirely fruitless argument on the internet. You win no prize. I should note, I take no position. I just have seen enough instances of the permissive is more free! NO, copyleft is more free! argument for: a) today b) this week c) a lifetime d) the lifetime of the universe Since we're doing, and another thing, I wasn't asking for a prize. I was expanding on the assertion icecat is 'more free'. As someone who's been using Fedora for quite some time you might conclude I have some sympathy for the argument, but I notice fedora does not prevent me adding third party repositories or installing RPMs that have licenses it disagrees with. Also, given the existence of things like iceweasel the reader might have concluded 'more free' in this context meant free of trademarks. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
Hello all, I haven't thought about possible replacement plans, in my opinion it's too early to talk about that now. As for the packaging process, the package requires some rework and improvement - it's actually in the process. It takes some time and efforts from a submitter (Antonio Trande), we'll see what will happen.. Everyone is encouraged to take part in the discussion, share some thoughts, etc. Any ideas are welcome. --- wbr, Denis. On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.dewrote: On 01/27/2014 05:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: Hi, Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free version firefox. Do we allow this in Fedora now? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
On 27 January 2014 05:36, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 01/27/2014 05:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: Hi, Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free version firefox. I'd argue it's *less* free since it seeks to restrict what you can do: Finally, we need to change free browsers to detect and block nontrivial nonfree JavaScript in web pages. But: My view: It's a package like any arbitrary other. So, if it complies to the rules applied elsewhere, I don't see much reasons why it can not be part of Fedora. If people do want to use and someone willing to maintain it I don't see why not. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Icecat package review has NOT the goal to replace Firefox in Fedora. I wish to offer the opportunity to everyone of try a browser like so a GNU user would do. - -- Antonio Trande mailto: sagitterATfedoraproject.org http://www.fedoraos.worpress.com https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter GPG Key: D400D6C4 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS5peJAAoJED2vIvfUANbEKfcP/jqhZxxm/ynh/3M8JYVaapTR 8hPpKW+ihSAsM96cYXMjMifQ+OcG5RhL+usjvL8p2IJRWEbiQuY66zla7/XQ03B3 8dLPbxgU6PlKw5hkR3+yS5rylyIp89SOWh1hDaag13UDUrPIm5tyr6UzHK+kZfkr tb6N9LUuXodTW2HlPuEuCkO8rKYrlEaEKAIT1FKIVB9oOhnYAeHrHPevLhXsORz1 eZHs8bPzorJLCRvv3PhMF9AswIlBU6X9gi1bPTx2R7jvM0hrFlE2NcyNd2Y/FbsF 9+pjR/eqCnq5boy6y3Go6ah9WFto81DcnsSyvaVWxEA9MfuLFUyohV2yqOM5PBFO wGz0cq24dTrXIISquhdyLoougxezRGCdJt4QwGuCbGuWYgDJOrD6R7UGGW6BJRVP c4aiMKSGxJ6MTkSzNGWBSoTJyhOUCbMRpNL6O31R/l1SQqrg1uKeNcpt0dyvENyd eyzCbS65w3uS5QwS7lzzYIxxnQQRF2u7JaN0dbgTU2fTbMWQd15/V3QcEbpRXHTY 8IFbCNH9C2Acc+JWzDX8uX+Mkc8nrFouYmgcmP6Jm81/nbrJyBghIWrsBt5eMITH hOcaHgztBzBW3VLYrxiJWD2poxfiukfKhVUAQS/6koSXWLxYObobBfGpBu4NFisD NKjvyxhnvhHNqgUVRxL2 =7n9z -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
On 27.01.2014 05:08, Christopher Meng wrote: Hi, Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free version firefox. Do we allow this in Fedora now? Thanks. [1]--https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493 http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sagitter/Icecat/ http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sagitter/Icecat/repo/fedora-20-i386/ gpgcheck=0 !? Signing Built RPMs http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/RPM_Guide/ch11s04.html poma -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:45:48 +0100 poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote: On 27.01.2014 05:08, Christopher Meng wrote: Hi, Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free version firefox. Do we allow this in Fedora now? Thanks. [1]--https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493 http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sagitter/Icecat/ http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sagitter/Icecat/repo/fedora-20-i386/ gpgcheck=0 !? Signing Built RPMs http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/RPM_Guide/ch11s04.html copr has no provision currently to sign packages. I think it's on the todo list, but it will not be easy to implement in a secure way. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
On 27.01.2014 19:52, Kevin Fenzi wrote: copr has no provision currently to sign packages. I think it's on the todo list, but it will not be easy to implement in a secure way. Ouch! poma -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sagitter/Icecat/builds/ Results: http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/Icecat/ http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/Icecat/fedora-20-x86_64/ http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/Icecat/fedora-20-x86_64/icecat-24.0-1.fc20/icecat-24.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Package URLs: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Icecat/icecat-24.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Not Found The requested URL /Icecat/icecat-24.0-1.fc20.src.rpm was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Icecat/ Name Last modified Size Parent Directory- icecat-24.0-2.fc20.src.rpm 08-Jan-2014 16:23 157M icecat-24.0-3.fc20.src.rpm 16-Jan-2014 18:07 157M icecat.spec16-Jan-2014 18:08 9.4K The multitude of all kinds of links! :) poma -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/27/2014 07:56 PM, poma wrote: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sagitter/Icecat/builds/ Results: http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/Icecat/ http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/Icecat/fedora-20-x86_64/ http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/Icecat/fedora-20-x86_64/icecat-24.0-1.fc20/icecat-24.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Package URLs: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Icecat/icecat-24.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Not Found The requested URL /Icecat/icecat-24.0-1.fc20.src.rpm was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Icecat/ Name Last modified Size Parent Directory - icecat-24.0-2.fc20.src.rpm 08-Jan-2014 16:23 157M icecat-24.0-3.fc20.src.rpm 16-Jan-2014 18:07 157M icecat.spec 16-Jan-2014 18:08 9.4K The multitude of all kinds of links! :) I don't know what you mean. In copr there is first release of Icecat that I've built. In fedorapeople.org I upload all later releases little by little package review advances. Latest release is here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6455790 - -- Antonio Trande mailto: sagitterATfedoraproject.org http://www.fedoraos.worpress.com https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter GPG Key: D400D6C4 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS5rDXAAoJED2vIvfUANbEHGoP/0QPLFA5+Ohbazk1mJbC7NTu JuWe/i6uZ439de8Et3frIEe3vdKiuISAM43y1zWk7BZvvrYSLhHt4ISpKkloUhP4 w6RgseLyjNdTZ0zisdxLGcU+TkmHxPsY1C5n+K4Rp3JUXaOisejYSePlEZ/GdsE2 sI5U9kkrqBt7xkZVhe1vEsDbLPxgIjCrsVgdTolderWynQ+x3uuKKWsuOUN3FQL+ JAMtWPI0qe26de52haDO4buCEBxNXZJK213bCfHeUswcJTbRSEOYWg33I9VIlB4m PeJYOAPKegcOS89Vpfdb6oOzbwy2c0w98Poub+KQfV53fGqLW11B4i3TuZ/vuuPh NqKyrO2xrSbL2S3R76CXdRHFAb99AprlCDPS8QxkJJkRwaQkmYzhO4J3d28vfKL9 2wtMzd8LSgxquOKLbKat8rsjkhtxLpAzdWJh9HvqX1K8GqeU2HpvGFVQMYsHpNnU FiI9IYFP5nTlDhP+JPlLSIJtZtKTJYB1qFVeAmqlVF/IBa3pcAJc3LwxvMDQg3A4 m4vJIjZO8s8aXoOIzIzoRW9kk1iXTBBIooCERacf00C3YyiAyPeKffzFozKgw+Yr bLLJj4Cg4FUpTItrX588ykr7PhR2fi/962PZmvcIp2wCx3KCX/4v64x28RKO/0c8 Jc6hZjzR9/Q2OmnJYdF9 =DzKo -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:59 AM, poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote: On 27.01.2014 19:52, Kevin Fenzi wrote: copr has no provision currently to sign packages. I think it's on the todo list, but it will not be easy to implement in a secure way. Ouch! I'm skeptical about the whole package-signing thing. Why don't we sign repository metadata and have that metadata store hashes of the appropriate packages? Then adding a key for a repository wouldn't magically allow that key to sign packages claiming to come from a different repository. It would also prevent various replay-old-package attacks. Configuration could be simpler, too: [some-copr-repo] name=Name metalink=whatever metalink_key=[private key, specified right here] gpgcheck=0 I doubt that GPG's keyring concepts or web-of-trust stuff add any security whatsoever to things like rpm and yum. They do, however, make configuration unnecessarily arcane. --Andy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
On 27.01.2014 20:17, Antonio Trande wrote: On 01/27/2014 07:56 PM, poma wrote: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sagitter/Icecat/builds/ … Package URLs: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Icecat/icecat-24.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Not Found The requested URL /Icecat/icecat-24.0-1.fc20.src.rpm was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. … I don't know what you mean. In copr there is first release of Icecat that I've built. … Say whaaat? :) At least one broken link!? I know there is a repo, but nonetheless. poma -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
On 27.01.2014 20:28, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:59 AM, poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote: On 27.01.2014 19:52, Kevin Fenzi wrote: copr has no provision currently to sign packages. I think it's on the todo list, but it will not be easy to implement in a secure way. Ouch! I'm skeptical about the whole package-signing thing. Why don't we sign repository metadata and have that metadata store hashes of the appropriate packages? Then adding a key for a repository wouldn't magically allow that key to sign packages claiming to come from a different repository. It would also prevent various replay-old-package attacks. Configuration could be simpler, too: [some-copr-repo] name=Name metalink=whatever metalink_key=[private key, specified right here] gpgcheck=0 I doubt that GPG's keyring concepts or web-of-trust stuff add any security whatsoever to things like rpm and yum. They do, however, make configuration unnecessarily arcane. We shouldn't change so easily tried and tested methods just because you doubt. :) Ouch[2]! poma -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:41:35 +0100 poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote: On 27.01.2014 20:28, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:59 AM, poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote: ...snip... I'm skeptical about the whole package-signing thing. skeptical in what way? Why don't we sign repository metadata and have that metadata store hashes of the appropriate packages? Then adding a key for a repository wouldn't magically allow that key to sign packages claiming to come from a different repository. It would also prevent various replay-old-package attacks. Sure, but if you install a package not from the repo you have no way to know it's valid without that repodata being available to check against. Also, old packages won't be verifable anymore when repodata changes to drop them. Configuration could be simpler, too: [some-copr-repo] name=Name metalink=whatever metalink_key=[private key, specified right here] gpgcheck=0 Something would need to generate the metalinks then... Feel free to file it as a RFE for copr... perhaps it would work out there. I doubt that GPG's keyring concepts or web-of-trust stuff add any security whatsoever to things like rpm and yum. They do, however, make configuration unnecessarily arcane. We shouldn't change so easily tried and tested methods just because you doubt. :) Ouch[2]! Well, there are advantages to moving to signing repodata. There's also disadvantages. For Fedora repos, it's not worth it. It might be the tradeoffs are different in copr and it's a better option there. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 11:52 +, Ian Malone wrote: On 27 January 2014 05:36, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 01/27/2014 05:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: Hi, Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free version firefox. I'd argue it's *less* free since it seeks to restrict what you can do: Congratulations! You are the millionth person to regurgitate this entirely fruitless argument on the internet. You win no prize. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 22:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 11:52 +, Ian Malone wrote: On 27 January 2014 05:36, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 01/27/2014 05:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: Hi, Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free version firefox. I'd argue it's *less* free since it seeks to restrict what you can do: Congratulations! You are the millionth person to regurgitate this entirely fruitless argument on the internet. You win no prize. I should note, I take no position. I just have seen enough instances of the permissive is more free! NO, copyleft is more free! argument for: a) today b) this week c) a lifetime d) the lifetime of the universe -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
icecat or/and firefox?
Hi, Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free version firefox. Do we allow this in Fedora now? Thanks. [1]--https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493 -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng Noob here. http://cicku.me -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
Il 27/01/2014 05:08, Christopher Meng ha scritto: Hi, Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free version firefox. Do we allow this in Fedora now? Thanks. [1]--https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493 -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng Noob here. http://cicku.me hi 've tried, i prefer firefox... regards gil attachment: puntogil.vcf-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
've tried, i prefer firefox... Actually firefox is easy to use and quick in developing. But please read [1]. icecat solves it, and that is why I want to use icecat in Fedora. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html Kenjiro - 元のメッセージ - 差出人: punto...@libero.it 宛先: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org 送信済み: 2014年1月27日, 月曜日 午後 1:26:42 件名: Re: icecat or/and firefox? Il 27/01/2014 05:08, Christopher Meng ha scritto: Hi, Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free version firefox. Do we allow this in Fedora now? Thanks. [1]--https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493 -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng Noob here. http://cicku.me hi 've tried, i prefer firefox... regards gil -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
Hi On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free version firefox. Do we allow this in Fedora now? Thanks. [1]--https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493 -- I would say we do but if you are in doubt, file a ticket with packaging committee Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: icecat or/and firefox?
On 01/27/2014 05:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: Hi, Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free version firefox. Do we allow this in Fedora now? My view: It's a package like any arbitrary other. So, if it complies to the rules applied elsewhere, I don't see much reasons why it can not be part of Fedora. I am having doubts on whether it's long-term maintainable (esp. security-wise) and would not want to exclude their may exist legal issues, but these are different stories. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
