Hi guys, So I kicked off adding 3rd party applications to Fedora Workstation 28, by submitting two tickets proposing NVidia driver and Steam.
There are basically two pages to look at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_policies?rd=...
And the practical guide for proposing an application at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_Workstation_...
The second link includes a proposal template for adding apps. The vehicle for proposing applications is the working group pagure instance.
I would recommend people to go over the requirements and work with 3rd parties to propose further applications to include. We accept package proposals that are either in RPM or Flatpak format.
Also we have a detailed howto created for how to create your repository technically ready for inclusion in Fedora, but it needs a little more work to get online, but Paul Frields is working on that and hopefully we will get it resolved soon.
Christian
On 03/20/2018 03:03 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
I would recommend people to go over the requirements and work with 3rd parties to propose further applications to include. We accept package proposals that are either in RPM or Flatpak format.
I don't think we have a mechanism to add third party flatpak repos right now. We have fedora-workstation-repositories package for shipping rpm .repo files (and support for it in gnome-software), but nothing equivalent for flatpak remotes.
Couldn't we use the same RPM for the flatpak repositories then?
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Kalev Lember kalevlember@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/20/2018 03:03 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
I would recommend people to go over the requirements and work with 3rd parties to propose further applications to include. We accept package proposals that are either in RPM or Flatpak format.
I don't think we have a mechanism to add third party flatpak repos right now. We have fedora-workstation-repositories package for shipping rpm .repo files (and support for it in gnome-software), but nothing equivalent for flatpak remotes.
-- Kalev _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
I think that would make sense. Christian, what are the requirements here? Do we have to ship the flatpak repositories in a disabled state, similar to the rpm repositories where they are enabled=0?
I am not sure the whole disabled state makes any sense anymore even in RPM. That was something that was decided we do when the idea was to ship the repos by default, but disabled. Now that the 3rd party repos are installed only once you enable 3rd party software I would say we could drop the whole disabled setup as it is redundant.
Christian
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:06 AM, Kalev Lember kalevlember@gmail.com wrote:
I think that would make sense. Christian, what are the requirements here? Do we have to ship the flatpak repositories in a disabled state, similar to the rpm repositories where they are enabled=0?
-- Kalev
On 03/20/2018 04:02 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
Couldn't we use the same RPM for the flatpak repositories then?
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Kalev Lember <kalevlember@gmail.com mailto:kalevlember@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/20/2018 03:03 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote: > I would recommend people to go over the requirements and work with3rd
> parties to propose further applications to include. We acceptpackage
> proposals that are either in RPM or Flatpak format. I don't think we have a mechanism to add third party flatpak reposright
now. We have fedora-workstation-repositories package for shippingrpm
.repo files (and support for it in gnome-software), but nothing equivalent for flatpak remotes. -- Kalev _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org> To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org>
desktop mailing list -- desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
desktop mailing list -- desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Good. That would make it all much easier from the users point of view, I think.
Kalev
On 03/21/2018 12:10 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
I am not sure the whole disabled state makes any sense anymore even in RPM. That was something that was decided we do when the idea was to ship the repos by default, but disabled. Now that the 3rd party repos are installed only once you enable 3rd party software I would say we could drop the whole disabled setup as it is redundant.
Christian
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:06 AM, Kalev Lember <kalevlember@gmail.com mailto:kalevlember@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that would make sense. Christian, what are the requirements here? Do we have to ship the flatpak repositories in a disabled state, similar to the rpm repositories where they are enabled=0? -- Kalev On 03/20/2018 04:02 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote: > Couldn't we use the same RPM for the flatpak repositories then? > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Kalev Lember <kalevlember@gmail.com <mailto:kalevlember@gmail.com> > <mailto:kalevlember@gmail.com <mailto:kalevlember@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > On 03/20/2018 03:03 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote: > > I would recommend people to go over the requirements and work with 3rd > > parties to propose further applications to include. We accept package > > proposals that are either in RPM or Flatpak format. > > I don't think we have a mechanism to add third party flatpak repos right > now. We have fedora-workstation-repositories package for shipping rpm > .repo files (and support for it in gnome-software), but nothing > equivalent for flatpak remotes. > > -- > Kalev > _______________________________________________ > desktop mailing list -- desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org> > <mailto:desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org>> > To unsubscribe send an email to > desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org> > <mailto:desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org>> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > desktop mailing list -- desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org> > To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org> > _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org> To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org>
desktop mailing list -- desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 12:19:16 +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
Good. That would make it all much easier from the users point of view, I think.
Kalev
On 03/21/2018 12:10 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
I am not sure the whole disabled state makes any sense anymore even in RPM. That was something that was decided we do when the idea was to ship the repos by default, but disabled. Now that the 3rd party repos are installed only once you enable 3rd party software I would say we could drop the whole disabled setup as it is redundant.
I'm not so sure. Why is it redundant? With the third party repositories set up at the moment, you're saying "These are repositories that you can use if you want to. Please review them and enable ones you'd use." So, there's that decision for the user to make, which gives the user time to review what these repositories are.
Enabling them by default takes this away from them. I think disabled by default makes sense, especially in the case of repositories that provide proprietary software.
It is redundant because you end up asking the same question multiple times. Because if we do the disabled part you are first asked to approve 3rd party repositories in general, including ones with proprietary software, then you are asked again or have to find the setting to actually activate the 3rd party repositories. And once you for instance then enabled lets say the Chrome repo you have to go into GNOME Software again to actually install Chrome. My take is that step 2 is redundant because you are answering the question about if you want Chrome once you choose to install Chrome. Remember enabling the repos do not mean any software gets autoinstalled.
Christian
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:57 AM, Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 12:19:16 +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
Good. That would make it all much easier from the users point of view, I think.
Kalev
On 03/21/2018 12:10 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
I am not sure the whole disabled state makes any sense anymore even in RPM. That was something that was decided we do when the idea was to ship the repos by default, but disabled. Now that the 3rd party repos are installed only once you enable 3rd party software I would say we could drop the whole disabled setup as it is redundant.
I'm not so sure. Why is it redundant? With the third party repositories set up at the moment, you're saying "These are repositories that you can use if you want to. Please review them and enable ones you'd use." So, there's that decision for the user to make, which gives the user time to review what these repositories are.
Enabling them by default takes this away from them. I think disabled by default makes sense, especially in the case of repositories that provide proprietary software.
-- Thanks, Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
desktop mailing list -- desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 10:49:06 -0400, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
It is redundant because you end up asking the same question multiple times. Because if we do the disabled part you are first asked to approve 3rd party repositories in general, including ones with proprietary software, then you are asked again or have to find the setting to actually activate the 3rd party repositories. And once you for instance then enabled lets say the Chrome repo you have to go into GNOME Software again to actually install Chrome. My take is that step 2 is redundant because you are answering the question about if you want Chrome once you choose to install Chrome.
Remember enabling the repos do not mean any software gets autoinstalled.
Hrm, OK. I see what you mean. It is asking the user similar questions and that, from a usability perspective, is not a good thing. Sure. My concern is of a different nature.
I am concerned that in the current implementation, or in what I see being discussed (so please correct me if this is inaccurate), I do not see a stage where we point out to the user that we, as Fedora, would really really reallllyyyy like them to use Free software, and not use proprietary software unless absolutely necessary (right?).
Would you have any ideas on how the whole experience can include such a statement to clearly emphasize our commitment to Free Software?
Like I had said in a reply before, I think this is an excellent opportunity to make the Free Software philosophy more visible to end users. :)
Well the current enablement of 3rd party software is meant to include stuff in that regards and I think the revised text that was worked on with among others Matthew Miller tried to come up with something better than the current screenshots. Also in the GNOME software the licensing field do put the work Proprietary in a bright red colour box which to me signals 'warning' since red usually is used as the colour of negative alerts. So I do think we are covering this and I think that is good, but we should be careful not to get to the stage where installing Chrome comes with a blinking warning saying 'You can install this, but be aware that we morally judge your for it' :)
Christian
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 10:49:06 -0400, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
It is redundant because you end up asking the same question multiple
times.
Because if we do the disabled part you are first asked to approve 3rd
party
repositories in general, including ones with proprietary software, then
you are
asked again or have to find the setting to actually activate the 3rd
party
repositories. And once you for instance then enabled lets say the Chrome
repo
you have to go into GNOME Software again to actually install Chrome. My
take is
that step 2 is redundant because you are answering the question about if
you
want Chrome once you choose to install Chrome.
Remember enabling the repos do not mean any software gets autoinstalled.
Hrm, OK. I see what you mean. It is asking the user similar questions and that, from a usability perspective, is not a good thing. Sure. My concern is of a different nature.
I am concerned that in the current implementation, or in what I see being discussed (so please correct me if this is inaccurate), I do not see a stage where we point out to the user that we, as Fedora, would really really reallllyyyy like them to use Free software, and not use proprietary software unless absolutely necessary (right?).
Would you have any ideas on how the whole experience can include such a statement to clearly emphasize our commitment to Free Software?
Like I had said in a reply before, I think this is an excellent opportunity to make the Free Software philosophy more visible to end users. :)
-- Thanks, Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 12:47:50 -0400, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
Well the current enablement of 3rd party software is meant to include stuff in that regards and I think the revised text that was worked on with among others Matthew Miller tried to come up with something better than the current screenshots.
What screenshots are you referring to here?
Also in the GNOME software the licensing field do put the work Proprietary in a bright red colour box which to me signals 'warning' since red usually is used as the colour of negative alerts. So I do think we are covering this and I think that is good,
No, see, it isn't good enough.
What does the word "proprietary" mean to an end user that is targeted here---one that is not necessarily part of the Open source eco system and has no context?
What does it say about Free Software, and its importance?
What does it say about how and why the Fedora community has made a commitment to this movement?
Nothing at all. So, no, the "proprietary" label is not enough.
but we should be careful not to get to the stage where installing Chrome comes with a blinking warning saying 'You can install this, but be aware that we morally judge your for it' :)
I won't reply to this hyperbolic comment. What I will do, is quote the "Freedom" foundation from here instead: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/fedora-project/project/fedora-overview.html
"We are dedicated to free software and content.
Advancing software and content freedom is a central community goal, which we accomplish through the software and content we promote. We choose free alternatives to proprietary code and content and limit the effects of proprietary or patent encumbered code on the Project.
Sometimes this goal prevents us from taking the easy way out by including proprietary or patent encumbered software in Fedora. But by concentrating on the free software and content we provide and promote, the end result is that we are able to provide:
- releases that are predictable and 100% legally redistributable for everyone; - innovation in free and open source software that can equal or exceed closed source or proprietary solutions; - and, a completely free project that anyone can emulate or copy in whole or in part for their own purposes. "
So, how is this new feature is coherent with this in its current form?
What do the other community members think please?
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 12:47:50 -0400, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
Well the current enablement of 3rd party software is meant to include
stuff in
that regards and I think the revised text that was worked on with among
others
Matthew Miller tried to come up with something better than the current screenshots.
What screenshots are you referring to here?
There has been screenshots of this functionality shown here and in other forums where this has been discussed, I don't have a link at hand atm. but I will check with Kalev where I can find the latest screenshots and update with a link.
Also in the GNOME software the licensing field do put the work Proprietary in a bright red colour box which to me signals 'warning'
since red
usually is used as the colour of negative alerts. So I do think we are
covering
this and I think that is good,
No, see, it isn't good enough.
What does the word "proprietary" mean to an end user that is targeted here---one that is not necessarily part of the Open source eco system and has no context?
What does it say about Free Software, and its importance?
What does it say about how and why the Fedora community has made a commitment to this movement?
Nothing at all. So, no, the "proprietary" label is not enough.
That label is there AFTER you have been pushed through the gated enable 3rd party software setup, which is mean to include in dept information about free software and Fedora's mission. So my point was that even after you been educated on the issue through that gating process there is some subliminal messaging around it.
but we should be careful not to get to the stage where installing Chrome comes with a blinking warning saying 'You can
install
this, but be aware that we morally judge your for it' :)
I won't reply to this hyperbolic comment. What I will do, is quote the "Freedom" foundation from here instead: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/fedora-project/project/fedora-overview.html
<snip>
What I meant with my comment was that we want this to be a positive push for free software alternatives, not a 'your an asshole for using non-free software' because that detracts from the goal of promoting free software.
So, how is this new feature is coherent with this in its current form?
What do the other community members think please?
-- Thanks, Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller cschalle@redhat.com wrote:
<snip> What I meant with my comment was that we want this to be a positive push for free software alternatives, not a 'your an asshole for using non-free software' because that detracts from the goal of promoting free software.
These goals are not mutually-exclusive. We should be able to provide some education on free software in a prominent and meaningful way, without shaming the user or making it difficult to install the software.
Strawman proposal: I'm imagining a moderately-sized red banner that says something along the lines of "This software does not respect your freedom. <a href="...">Learn more...</a>", which would be hard to miss, but also not so large that it gets in the way or slows down the user. Currently the little red Proprietary license tag is easy to ignore and doesn't mean much. Kalev showed me a screenshot showing the existing "Learn more..." link in the software sources dialog, but that's somewhat buried and very easy to ignore.
On 03/21/2018 08:19 PM, mcatanzaro@gnome.org wrote:
Kalev showed me a screenshot showing the existing "Learn more..." link in the software sources dialog, but that's somewhat buried and very easy to ignore.
That would be https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/find-out-more.png which right now points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software
The wikipedia link is not great and is just a placeholder right now. We'd need a Fedora page that talks about the Fedora Workstation-provided third party repos and explains what they are and why we don't ship them by default. This would be a good place to educate users about the free software advantages and why they should use it over proprietary alternatives.
I know that mattdm talked about having a docs.fedoraproject.org page for this, but this hasn't yet materialized and if anyone wants to make a temporary wiki page we can use while we don't have a docs page, that would be totally awesome. And that wouldn't be wasted time either because I'm sure the docs page can use the same content too.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 14:19:48 -0500, mcatanzaro@gnome.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller cschalle@redhat.com wrote:
<snip> What I meant with my comment was that we want this to be a positive push for free software alternatives, not a 'your an asshole for using non-free software' because that detracts from the goal of promoting free software.These goals are not mutually-exclusive. We should be able to provide some education on free software in a prominent and meaningful way, without shaming the user or making it difficult to install the software.
Thanks for explaining this in such a clear way :)
Strawman proposal: I'm imagining a moderately-sized red banner that says something along the lines of "This software does not respect your freedom. <a href="...">Learn more...</a>", which would be hard to miss, but also not so large that it gets in the way or slows down the user. Currently the little red Proprietary license tag is easy to ignore and doesn't mean much. Kalev showed me a screenshot showing the existing "Learn more..." link in the software sources dialog, but that's somewhat buried and very easy to ignore.
This would be a nice start - is something like this doable?
On 03/21/2018 08:07 PM, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@gmail.com mailto:sanjay.ankur@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 12:47:50 -0400, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote: > Well the current enablement of 3rd party software is meant to include stuff in > that regards and I think the revised text that was worked on with among others > Matthew Miller tried to come up with something better than the current > screenshots. What screenshots are you referring to here?There has been screenshots of this functionality shown here and in other forums where this has been discussed, I don't have a link at hand atm. but I will check with Kalev where I can find the latest screenshots and update with a link.
https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/find-out-more.png -- this is what we have in F28 and already has the revised text that we came up together with mattdm and aday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF2FEeOdmFE&feature=youtu.be has a screencast how it all comes together on a stock F28 install.
<snip>
Nothing at all. So, no, the "proprietary" label is not enough.That label is there AFTER you have been pushed through the gated enable 3rd party software setup, which is mean to include in dept information about free software and Fedora's mission.
I'm not concerned about the gating. I agree that asking the same question again and again inhibits usability.
As Michael pointed out in his e-mail, better wording could give more visibility to Free software and the community's mission than the current text.
So my point was that even after you been educated on the issue through that gating process there is some subliminal messaging around it.
Well, it should really be more than subliminal messaging even at that point. :)
For example, instead of framing all of this in terms of "proprietary" software, can we frame it in terms of "non free"/"non free and not open source" software? Would that require a review from a legal perspective?
I ask because even though the two terms are synonymous, "non free" (to me) says more than that the software is proprietary. It also says that there is something called "free software", and that gives me more information to a user in an educational sense.
Would something like this be doable?
On 2018-03-21 19:24, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 12:47:50 -0400, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
Also in the GNOME software the licensing field do put the work Proprietary in a bright red colour box which to me signals 'warning' since red usually is used as the colour of negative alerts. So I do think we are covering this and I think that is good,
No, see, it isn't good enough.
What does the word "proprietary" mean to an end user that is targeted here---one that is not necessarily part of the Open source eco system and has no context?
If you click the label in the licensing field, it pops up a box with some more information. That description also includes a link to Wikipedia that describes the lack of access to the source code, redistribution limitations, etc. of proprietary software. Screenshot attached. Probably possible to make it better, but maybe that discussion is better done in an issue tracker. - Andreas
If you click the label in the licensing field, it pops up a box with some more information. That description also includes a link to Wikipedia that describes the lack of access to the source code, redistribution limitations, etc. of proprietary software. Screenshot attached. Probably possible to make it better, but maybe that discussion is better done in an issue tracker.
Should I move this to the workstation issue tracker?
On 2018-03-23 16:58, Ankur Sinha wrote:
If you click the label in the licensing field, it pops up a box with some more information. That description also includes a link to Wikipedia that describes the lack of access to the source code, redistribution limitations, etc. of proprietary software. Screenshot attached. Probably possible to make it better, but maybe that discussion is better done in an issue tracker.
Should I move this to the workstation issue tracker?
Not sure, possibly. Maybe the upstream issue tracker for GNOME Software is a better fit. https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/issues - Andreas
Not sure, possibly. Maybe the upstream issue tracker for GNOME Software is a better fit. https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/issues
Thanks!
I've filed these two tickets to get the ball rolling:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/issues/336 - "Improvements to "Proprietary" pop box text to make it more informative about Free software"
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/issues/335 - "Would it be possible to user Free software terminolgy to mark non-free software? "NonFree" instead of "Proprietary" for example""
Please leave your suggestions there.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:41:20PM +0000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Remember enabling the repos do not mean any software gets autoinstalled.
Hrm, OK. I see what you mean. It is asking the user similar questions and that, from a usability perspective, is not a good thing. Sure. My concern is of a different nature.
Does enabling a third-party repo allow software to be automatically installed from that repo to satisfy dependencies on system updates, even if nothing has been explicitly installed from that third-party repo? Can a third-party repo override packages from Fedora repos?
I am concerned that in the current implementation, or in what I see being discussed (so please correct me if this is inaccurate), I do not see a stage where we point out to the user that we, as Fedora, would really really reallllyyyy like them to use Free software, and not use proprietary software unless absolutely necessary (right?).
Would you have any ideas on how the whole experience can include such a statement to clearly emphasize our commitment to Free Software?
Like I had said in a reply before, I think this is an excellent opportunity to make the Free Software philosophy more visible to end users. :)
Maybe we can "taint" the system if proprietary software is installed, like how the kernel gets tainted with proprietary kernel modules? ABRT can then report the tainted status in any bugs it files.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Chuck Anderson cra@wpi.edu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:41:20PM +0000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Remember enabling the repos do not mean any software gets autoinstalled.
Hrm, OK. I see what you mean. It is asking the user similar questions and that, from a usability perspective, is not a good thing. Sure. My concern is of a different nature.
Does enabling a third-party repo allow software to be automatically installed from that repo to satisfy dependencies on system updates, even if nothing has been explicitly installed from that third-party repo? Can a third-party repo override packages from Fedora repos?
That would be a breach of the 3rd party software policy, so the answer is
no. Of course that is something we will have to police as there is no technical block, so no repo which does something like that would be approved to begin with and if we find one that started doing so it would mean getting dropped. If 3rd party apps want different dependencies than what we offer in Fedora they would need to offer their application as a Flatpak and put their different versions etc. inside their own container.
Christian
I am concerned that in the current implementation, or in what I see being discussed (so please correct me if this is inaccurate), I do not see a stage where we point out to the user that we, as Fedora, would really really reallllyyyy like them to use Free software, and not use proprietary software unless absolutely necessary (right?).
Would you have any ideas on how the whole experience can include such a statement to clearly emphasize our commitment to Free Software?
Like I had said in a reply before, I think this is an excellent opportunity to make the Free Software philosophy more visible to end users. :)
Maybe we can "taint" the system if proprietary software is installed, like how the kernel gets tainted with proprietary kernel modules? ABRT can then report the tainted status in any bugs it files.
Don't think it matters. First of all users don't see that information and developers are free to ignore crashers in Chrome or others anyway. And of course if we break ABI we want to know about it regardless.
Christian
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Andreas Nilsson -
Ankur Sinha -
Christian Fredrik Schaller -
Chuck Anderson -
Kalev Lember -
mcatanzaro＠gnome.org