[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Nicolás Reynolds
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Parabola GNU/Linux
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 20:06:59 -0300
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

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
> The kernel in gNewSense DeltaH is deblobbed, for MetaD we grab the
> source and binary packages straight from
> >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 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]

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.

Nicolás Reynolds,
gnu/linux user #455044

Attachment: pgpwIvCZScwRR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]