Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Parabola packaging

[bill-auger]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 22:54:09 -0400 Richard wrote:
> 1. Is each and every one of the user-maintained recipes supposed to be for
> a free program?

no - parabola does not host any user-maintained recipes, and does not direct
users toward any - we generally warn against installing any third-party software

yet, almost every parabola user know where to find them (arch hosts them); so
they will have no trouble finding a recipe for any package that parabola has
discarded - albeit, they will most likely find it in a pool alongside recipes
for non-free programs (which are usually simply installers for the publisher's
binary)


On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 22:54:09 -0400 Richard wrote:
> 2. How does Parabola deal with the issue of free programs that are
> useful only for running nonfree programs?  Does it try at all?  If so,
> in which steps?

we believe that the FSDG prohibits such a program

> The system should have no repositories for nonfree software and no specific
> recipes for installation of particular nonfree programs.

if the entire functionality is to install something else, that is effectively
an executable recipe - the classic example is the flash-player installer - that
program may itself be free - in theory, someone could modify it to install
something other than the flash player; but there is little to no motivation for
that use-case in general


On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 22:54:09 -0400 Richard wrote:
> 3. How do they verify that a package is really all free software,
> when someone proposes to add it to the user-maintained recipes?

i realize now the confusion - i was too vague - the user-maintained recipes i
was referring to, are the ones that arch hosts - parabola does not blindly
accept recipes as arch does - when i wrote that discarded packages are reverted
to the user-maintained pool, i did not intend that explicitly - i was referring
to the arch pool, where those recipes are hosted already, and will be,
regardless of what parabola does

parabola users do submit recipes for consideration, as a "packaging request" -
we evaluate those thoroughly (eg: is it well-licensed, does it build entirely
from source, does it recommend anything non-free or download anything from a
third-party at runtime) - if accepted, parabola will host the recipe and binary
packages - the user who submitted it is asked to continue maintaining the
recipe, as an honorary team member; but they are not obliged to do so