Re: Anti-features

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Anna Vyalkova <[email protected]> writes:

> On 2026-03-10, Filip Kobierski wrote:
>> Maybe one could flag slop packages with a LICENSE variable that is not=20
>> accepted by default?
>> That would allow users to still have the final say in what can run on th=
eir Gentoo systems but would be aware that AI-SLOP license is suboptimal.
>> Then I imagine the problem would be in marking packages as such...
>> Also the name of the "LICENSE"; AI-SLOP seems in-line with Gentoo's appr=
oach, alas I in my opinion is unprofessional. Plain AI does not really soun=
d discouraging. Naming is a secondary issue though.
>
> I'd like to revive this discussion.

(Did you lose In-Reply-To?)

>
> What if instead of only marking slop packages, it will be possible to=20
> mark all anti-features[0]? So users could be warned not only about slop=20
> packages, but also about non-free network services, bundled dependencies=
=20
> and other practices discouraged by Gentoo's high quality standards.
>
> This can be done either in profiles or in the ebuild itself. The term=20
> "anti-feature" is generic and future-proof.

Well, IMO, the most important part of the discussion was how to handle
the marking and the UX around that. I set out a few options in my email.

>
> Although at first most packages would have unknown anti-feature status,=20
> so it will need years to become actually useful.
>
> [0]: https://monitor.f-droid.org/anti-features

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEBBAEWCgCpFiEEJaa7iN2bdkxrVUHCc4QJ9SDfkZAFAmps5dgbFIAAAAAABAAO
bWFudTIsMi41KzEuMTIsMiwyXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25z
Lm9wZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQyNUE2QkI4OEREOUI3NjRDNkI1NTQx
QzI3Mzg0MDlGNTIwREY5MTkwDxxzYW1AZ2VudG9vLm9yZwAKCRBzhAn1IN+RkJuG
AQDw80GQSujr1nkFdFKpokxmAnFqsrXsibbOAU3ximpK8gEAnvAhMSH1AQ2Bue8p
kN1buCRGbDV3ZJV5vkSVSz8BkQ0=
=iaO2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--