| Summary: | Review request: ailurus - makes Linux easier to use | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Package Reviews | Reporter: | Homer Xing <homer.xing> |
| Component: | Review Request | Assignee: | RPM Fusion Package Review <rpmfusion-package-review> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | dtimms, hobbes1069, homer.xing, rpmfusion-package-review |
| Priority: | P5 | ||
| Version: | Current | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | GNU/Linux | ||
| namespace: | |||
|
Description
Homer Xing
2010-03-22 02:23:04 CET
The Adobe repo isn't the biggest issue as far as Fedora is concerned (that one is just a policy issue, not a legal issue), RPM Fusion and Livna (and ATrpms to some extent) are. BTW, is something pointing to Livna (and thus libdvdcss) even welcome in RPM Fusion? (FWIW, I personally consider such apps to be entirely counterproductive, as they actively promote proprietary software, which I consider to be counter to our goals and teaching entirely the wrong thing to our users, especially as the program claims to be "helping" them, when in fact it's only helping proprietary software vendors erode their freedoms. Yes, I personally consider the policy issue to be more serious than the legal ones.) (In reply to comment #2) > (FWIW, I personally consider such apps to be entirely counterproductive, as > they actively promote proprietary software, which I consider to be counter to > our goals and teaching entirely the wrong thing to our users, especially as the > program claims to be "helping" them, when in fact it's only helping proprietary > software vendors erode their freedoms. Yes, I personally consider the policy > issue to be more serious than the legal ones.) > Dear Kevin, Thank you very much for advice! I agree that Ailurus injured the users' freedom, and it tells proprietary software thing to users. Nevertheless I believe that the developers don't want to do that on purpose. The developers will correct the mistake soon. (In reply to comment #2) > (FWIW, I personally consider such apps to be entirely counterproductive, as > they actively promote proprietary software, which I consider to be counter to > our goals and teaching entirely the wrong thing to our users, especially as the > program claims to be "helping" them, when in fact it's only helping proprietary > software vendors erode their freedoms. Yes, I personally consider the policy > issue to be more serious than the legal ones.) > Dear Kevin Kofler, Ailurus developers (including me) do not wish to promote proprietary software, or injure users' freedom. Therefore they completely deleted all proprietary stuff. They made these changes: * Change SUN_JDK to OpenJDK. * Change VirtualBox to VirtualBox-ose. * Remove Dropbox. * Remove repositories which provides non-open-source software only. * Remove Livna repository. * Remove ATrpms repository. * Change Adobe Flash plugin to Gnash. * Remove Adobe Reader. * Remove Realplayer. * Remove Skype. * Change Chrome to Chromium. * Remove Native 64bit Flash plugin. Would you please re-consider it again? Thank you very much! New Spec: http://github.com/homerxing/Ailurus/raw/master/ailurus.spec New SRPM: http://homerxing.fedorapeople.org/ailurus-10.03.4-1.src.rpm New RPM: http://homerxing.fedorapeople.org/ailurus-10.03.4-1.noarch.rpm rpmlint: silent on SPEC and SRPM. koji: built successfully. See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2081157 (In reply to comment #4) > * Remove repositories which provides non-open-source software only. > * Remove Livna repository. > * Remove ATrpms repository. Hi Homer, I'm pretty sure that messing with people's software repository configuration is not acceptable in a package. (I haven't taken a look at how this was achieved in this package). An example why this might be bad: eg user installs package A from (removed repo), that requires current versions of libraries. They then install this package, which disables the repo. Fedora offers security patches for the libs that package A requires (specific version). Now the user can never successfully update to the security fixed packages because yum sees that the installed package would break. ps. I haven't performed a normal review. > Hi Homer,
>
> I'm pretty sure that messing with people's software repository configuration is
> not acceptable in a package. (I haven't taken a look at how this was achieved
> in this package).
>
> An example why this might be bad: eg user installs package A from (removed
> repo), that requires current versions of libraries. They then install this
> package, which disables the repo. Fedora offers security patches for the libs
> that package A requires (specific version). Now the user can never successfully
> update to the security fixed packages because yum sees that the installed
> package would break.
>
> ps. I haven't performed a normal review.
>
Dear David,
You are right. Installing a package from third-party repository will lock down the versions of libraries, for example, when the maintainer of the third-party repository forgets to upgrade the package.
However, I have not found out a solution yet. Should I completely remove all third-party repositories from Ailurus?
Best regards,
Homer
Dear all, New upstream version of Ailurus has released. It cannot install any third party repositories, or closed source software. This package is eligible now. Therefore I close this bug. Thank you very much for reviewing! Best regards, Homer Xing |