food for thought: ebuild importer?

food for thought: ebuild importer?

[ng0]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1099 bytes --]

So a very long time ago I was wondering: What if we could
take for example Gentoo's portage (and overlays) and process
ebuilds with an importer? There is software on there which does
not fall into our Guidelines by licenses, but there are many
more receipes on there we can make use of.

Ultimately we'll have the QA to check if it's compatible etc.
ebuild format changes every 2 years (in theory, sometimes stable
formats changed even between these 2 years) as another format gets
added.

So we would "just" need an ebuild-reader which would process this
from .ebuild (there's also .eclass we need to consider) to guix package.

We could do the same with PKGBUILD from the Archlinux based systems
and maybe other formats of other systems.

Or is this an idea which could never be in master because of this
systems providing receipes for software which is not fully compatible
with the Guidelines?

Just a "what if" question…
-- 
ng0
GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
GnuPG: https://n0is.noblogs.org/my-keys
https://www.infotropique.org https://krosos.org

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: food for thought: ebuild importer?

[ng0]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1466 bytes --]

ng0 transcribed 2.1K bytes:
> So a very long time ago I was wondering: What if we could
> take for example Gentoo's portage (and overlays) and process
> ebuilds with an importer? There is software on there which does
> not fall into our Guidelines by licenses, but there are many
> more receipes on there we can make use of.
> 
> Ultimately we'll have the QA to check if it's compatible etc.
> ebuild format changes every 2 years (in theory, sometimes stable
> formats changed even between these 2 years) as another format gets
> added.

Oh, and because of the (hopefully most of the time correct) field for
licenses we could even filter out incompatible licenses.

> So we would "just" need an ebuild-reader which would process this
> from .ebuild (there's also .eclass we need to consider) to guix package.
> 
> We could do the same with PKGBUILD from the Archlinux based systems
> and maybe other formats of other systems.
> 
> Or is this an idea which could never be in master because of this
> systems providing receipes for software which is not fully compatible
> with the Guidelines?
> 
> Just a "what if" question…
> -- 
> ng0
> GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
> GnuPG: https://n0is.noblogs.org/my-keys
> https://www.infotropique.org https://krosos.org



-- 
ng0
GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
GnuPG: https://n0is.noblogs.org/my-keys
https://www.infotropique.org https://krosos.org

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: food for thought: ebuild importer?

[Joshua Branson]

ng0 <ng0@infotropique.org> writes:

Well I know that the Parabola devs do not use the AUR.  Possibly because
they think that whitelisting free software is easier than blacklisting
proprietary software.

> ng0 transcribed 2.1K bytes:
>> So a very long time ago I was wondering: What if we could
>> take for example Gentoo's portage (and overlays) and process
>> ebuilds with an importer? There is software on there which does
>> not fall into our Guidelines by licenses, but there are many
>> more receipes on there we can make use of.
>> 
>> Ultimately we'll have the QA to check if it's compatible etc.
>> ebuild format changes every 2 years (in theory, sometimes stable
>> formats changed even between these 2 years) as another format gets
>> added.
>
> Oh, and because of the (hopefully most of the time correct) field for
> licenses we could even filter out incompatible licenses.
>
>> So we would "just" need an ebuild-reader which would process this
>> from .ebuild (there's also .eclass we need to consider) to guix package.
>> 
>> We could do the same with PKGBUILD from the Archlinux based systems
>> and maybe other formats of other systems.
>> 
>> Or is this an idea which could never be in master because of this
>> systems providing receipes for software which is not fully compatible
>> with the Guidelines?
>> 
>> Just a "what if" question…
>> -- 
>> ng0
>> GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
>> GnuPG: https://n0is.noblogs.org/my-keys
>> https://www.infotropique.org https://krosos.org

-- 
Sent from Emacs and Gnus