On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 14:58 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 26 February 2015 at 14:35, Josh Boyer
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/3rdPartyApps
These are the latest designs from Allan that I've implemented in
GNOME Software in F22 and rawhide:
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
> at non-free software is incompatible with Fedora's foundations"
> "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:
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:
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.