On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 14:58 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote: > On 26 February 2015 at 14:35, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/3rdPartyApps > > These are the latest designs from Allan that I've implemented in > GNOME Software in F22 and rawhide: > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gnome-design-team/gnome-mockups/master/software/version2/wire-third-party-repo-dialogs.png > This may be nitpicking, but what about the cases for things that ARE free and open-source, but may still be illegal in certain jurisdictions? (Such as patent-encumbered codecs). > > "The board believes that shipping repository metadata that points > > at non-free software is incompatible with Fedora's foundations" > > and > > "The board believes that reducing technical barriers to explicit > > user choice to install third-party software (non-free or > > otherwise) is compatible with Fedora's foundations." > > I had trouble interpreting those two statements, given that the only > technical barrier for finding non-free or not-yet-in-fedora software > *is* repo metadata itself. I assumed the first statement actually > meant "shipping enabled repository metadata" so we don't show it by > default without some other important step. > (The following statement is my interpretation, not the official position of the Council): I think that what this means is that they did not want us shipping /etc/yum.repos.d/google-chrome.repo (enabled *or* disabled), but that it's acceptable for GNOME Software to make it easier to acquire that repo file and enable/disable it. For example, installing a default MIME-type handler for files ending in .repo that allows GNOME Software to be launched and prompt you to load it if you click on such a path in a web browser. I think that would be in line with both statements. > > The latter statement led to some of the disabled repo work that > > Richard did, IIRC. It leaves a lot open to interpretation. > > Right, as a simple proposal, would it be acceptable for a package to > install something like this into /etc/yum.repos.d: > > [google-chrome] > name=google-chrome > baseurl=http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64 > enabled=0 > gpgcheck=1 > repo_gpgcheck=1 > enabled_metadata=1 > gpgkey=https://dl-ssl.google.com/linux/linux_signing_key.pub > > So the only time we'd access that repo is with PackageKit when > searching with gnome-software, and we'd only prompt to enable the > repo if it matched a search keyword like "chrome", and then did that > with a big dialog like the mockups warning about the perils and > morality of using nonfree software. Using dnf or yum it would be > completely invisible due to the enabled=0 line. This was basically > my proposal here: > http://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2015/01/09/finding-hidden-applications-with-gnome-software/ > which didn't seem too controversial at the time. > > I imagined that we'd ship a fedora-repos-extra package which we > could pull onto just the workstation product using comps, but I'm > open for ideas. > I'd say that this is probably directly against the intent of the first statement above, but it may be worth bringing that to the new Council directly. It may have a different result this time around.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
