The *blacklist.txt files consist of lines in the following format:
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
[uses-nonfree]··This package depends on, recommends, or otherwise
inappropriately integrates with other nonfree software
[branding]······This package has branding needs adjusted; it refers to
"Arch" instead of "Parabola", or "Linux" instead of
[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 depenency
package, or it must be compiled from source, as we are
stricter about that than Arch is.
Either thethe 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
[FIXME:description] Someone needs to fix the description in
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.