The *blacklist.txt files consist of lines in the following format: original-package:[libre-replacement]:[ref]:[id]:short-description where something within [] is optional. * original-package is the name of the binary package from Arch * libre-replacement is the name of the binary package that provides and replaces the original-package, or empty if there is no compatible replacement. The replacement must be compatible for use by humans and scripts, e.g. fastjar is not a replacement for zip although both solve the same problem. Packages in your-freedom_emu-blacklist.txt are not meant to have a replacement. * ref is described by the following table: debian: &debian http://bugs.debian.org/ fsf: &fsf http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines# savannah: &sv https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/? fedora: &fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id= parabola: ¶bola https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/ Use the value after & as the ref column value, the URL pointed by it and concatenated with the id field should point to an issue reporting/describing the reason for the package being blacklisted. We should prefer FSF refs, since they are easily available for other distros. Hopefully some lines will move from parabola:X to fsf:Y with the LibrePlanet wiki linking to the X issue on labs.parabola.nu. * short-description categorizes original-package with some tags, followed by a short verbal explanation. Popular tags are: [nonfree]·······This package is blatently nonfree software. [semifree]······This package is mostly free, but contains some nonfree software. [uses-nonfree]··This package depends on, recommends, or otherwise inappropriately integrates with other nonfree software or services. [branding]······This package has branding needs adjusted; it refers to "Arch" instead of "Parabola", or "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux", etc. [technical]·····This package cannot be imported from Arch because of technical reasons, rather than freedom reasons; this is NOT to do with freedom of privacy issues in the package. This usually comes down to two things: it must be recompiled against our version of a dependency package, or it must be compiled from source, as we are stricter about that than Arch is. Either the original-package and the libre-replacement should match; or the libre-replacement should be empty, and it also have [FIXME:package] on it. If neither of those are true, then you are using this tag wrong. If this is the only tag, and "nonfree" appears in the description, you are using this tag wrong. [FIXME:package] This package has a free replacement, or could be built in a way that is acceptable, but no one has done so yet. [FIXME:description] Someone needs to fix the description in blacklist.txt To make reporting issues to gnu-linux-libre easier, we should explain in the description if the package is blacklisted due to an upstream FSDG issue, problem introduced by Arch (e.g. not including required license text, adding optional dependency on a nonfree package), or just branding, dependency or non-freedom-related issues which don't need reporting to other distros.