Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Parabola GNU/Linux

[Nicolás Reynolds]

El 06/01/11 11:56, Sam Geeraerts dijo:
> Jason Self wrote:
> >Joshua Ismael wrote:
> >
> >>Archlinux has an automatic building system in wich you
> >>provide some information and the script automatically
> >>build them.
> >>
> >>For Parabola GNU/Linux we provide scripts for deblobing
> >>while building so anyone can compile it's linux-libre kernel
> >>from the vanilla source.
> >>
> >>If the purpose is to provide the means to build a free
> >>kernel we already make this. Isn't this enough?
> 
> A free distro should consist of only free software. Consider that the
> software is really the source code and that the binaries are just the
> usable machine-readable form of it. Both source code and binaries
> should be free (the latter follows from the former if all is well).
> 
> >My understanding is that the existing free distros provide
> >already-deblobbed kernel source code for their users to get, instead of
> >having them download the original unmodified tarball from kernel.org.
> 
> The kernel in gNewSense DeltaH is deblobbed, for MetaD we grab the
> source and binary packages straight from fsfla.org.
> 
> >My own personal opinion is that grabbing the corresponding linux-libre
> >tarballs and then fixing any distro-specific patches that don't cleanly
> >apply is a better choice.
> >
> >It's a good question, though: Can a free distro have their users
> >download nonfree software and then go through the process to clean it up
> >later?
> 
> Providing non-free software + user executable freedom patch is not
> what a free distro should be doing, IMO.
> 
> I'll admit these two points about gNewSense:
> 
> 1) We make OpenOffice.org link to the FSF extension list with a
> dpkg-divert in a separate package. This means that the link is only
> changed when that package is installed (which is the case in a
> standard desktop install). I think that's acceptable.
> 
> 2) Sometimes we leave freedom issues in the repo while working on a
> fix. In the case of the boost lib in OO.o [1] it took me a few months
> to fix it. Perhaps we should be more strict about this and remove the
> package immediately, but only reintroduce after the fix is complete.
> 
> [1] https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?29882

i think this point is clear enough now. while i'm writing this, i'm building
linux-libre directly from fsfla and i found a way to apply the arch patches,
which failed before.

-- 
Salud!
Nicolás Reynolds,
xmpp:address@hidden
omb:http://identi.ca/fauno
blog:http://selfdandi.com.ar/
gnu/linux user #455044

http://parabolagnulinux.org
http://endefensadelsl.org

pgpwIvCZScwRR.pgp
Description: PGP signature