Re: [GNU-linux-libre] DSFG in perpetuity

[bill-auger]

On 03/25/2018 02:54 PM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> For chromium - I am not in favor for it and as stated I request complete
> removal. The thing is - we must find more productive ways of this
> because simply removing things means also we remove productivity for
> many people (yes we have fork of Firefox but that is still not 100%
> stable and some things work on chromium that don't work on Firefox and
> vice versa).

ah welcome to the club - that is exactly the same predicament that
trisquel and parabola have been in for some time - i know that parabola
has had to drop a large number of programs because of this

if pureos users complain about it, do feel free to point them to this
thread on the fsd mailing list[1] - it lists most everything that is
known about the issue and how other distros have dealt with it - also
some small steps toward scrutinizing it

in case you did not know, this chromium controversy is nearly 10 years
old now and many people want it to be resolved one way or the other -
someone from the FSF even told me that RMS stated an interest recently
in resolving this; but it is a big task

to be clear, it is assumed that the issue pertains to all
chromium-derived browsers and libraries such as iridium, gupzilla,
qt5-webengine, and all electron "apps" such as riot, atom, and vscode -
one fedora developer has said that anything built on electron is
probably a hopeless cause; but a qt5-webengine on the list has stated
that they are interested and will fix any problems found even if the
upstream does not - that is encouraging because clients of qt5-webengine
account for the majority of blacklisted programs


[1]:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-11/msg00003.html

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature