|author||Luke Shumaker <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2017-03-20 13:18:11 -0400|
|committer||Luke Shumaker <email@example.com>||2017-03-20 13:18:11 -0400|
SYNTAX: clarify tag meanings.
Diffstat (limited to 'SYNTAX')
1 files changed, 35 insertions, 5 deletions
@@ -32,11 +32,41 @@ where something within  is optional.
* short-description categorizes original-package with some tags,
followed by a short verbal explanation. Popular tags are:
- [nonfree] for blatantly nonfree packages
- [semifree] mostly free packages with some nonfree additions
- [uses-nonfree] for depending upon, or recommending nonfree software
- [branding] Arch instead of Parabola, Linux instead of GNU/Linux, etc.
- [technical] patched to build from sources. various innocent circumstances
+ [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
+ 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 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