Re: [GNU-linux-libre] updates on nonfsg page

[Sam Geeraerts]

Karl Goetz wrote:
> hi all,
>
> I've just spent some time working through [1] and made quite a number
> of edits[2]. I've tried to update entries with more references, and
> checked for Debian bugs (as its my upstream) and commented with what I
> find. I've filed a couple more, but don't have bug numbers for them yet.

Regarding style:
- afio -> Afio was part of my "packages names -> software names" plan [A].
- I don't care whether pipes are at the start or end of a line. My 
"2010-09-10T07:59:01" edit made everything consistent with the majority 
of entries. It would be nice if we can agree on one style and make it 
that in one big swoop, because (re-)reflowing according to personal 
preference detracts from the actual diff.

> I do have some questions though.
>
>
> We included boinc via gNS, and a very quick search of this list archive
> didn't show any discussion past me saying I'd add it [3]. would we
> consider [4] as an acceptable licence to allow us to reinclude it?

Probably not [B].

> [5] is about command-not-found, which appears to work completely
> differently in Debian. I've not run it (system too old), but the
> problematic files/directories are not included in the package. Can
> someone else provide input?

It's database is built with update-command-not-found, which extracts its 
data from Contents-*.gz. Should be OK, I think.

> [6] is about the fonts lucida, but there are no references. could
> someone provide them please?
>
> Metapackages section i skipped, something to look through for another
> day.
>
> I note teeworlds is still on the list. I gather from the thread last
> time [7] that its considered free - shall i remove it?

I guess it's not a problem for distros, they aggregate it with other 
software anyway.

> I skipped filing bugs on thunderbird(icedove)/xchat in debian, thought
> i should follow up with someone first.
>
> Is XV[8] actually used by distributions? The references don't explain
> how/why its there.

Blame RMS [C]. :)

> I reincluded a number of packages into gNS, following what i can find
> out about the issues in the debian bts. I've looked at where versions
> say things are fixed, and added it to the wiki. then compared to the
> version in testing. if the version in testing is equal or greater,
> removed it from our blacklist. (See parkes bzr branch for details).
>
> [1] http://libreplanet.org/wiki?title=NONFSDG
> [2] 
> [3]
> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/cgi-bin/namazu.cgi?query=boinc&submit=Search%21&idxname=gnu-linux-libre&max=20&result=normal&sort=score
> [4] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=131997#71
> [5] http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00364
> [6]
> http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines#lucida
> [7]
> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2010-02/msg00001.html
> [8]
> http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines#xv

[A] 
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2010-08/msg00034.html
[B] https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?28528#comment3
[C] http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-dev/2010-02/msg00134.html