Project

General

Profile

Packaging request #2512

ungoogled-chromium with Guix recipe: is it a go?

dllud - 10 months ago - . Updated 3 months ago.

Status:
open
Priority:
wish
Assignee:
-
% Done:

0%


Description

I just found out that Guix (a FSDG compliant distro) distributes ungoogled-chromium after running it through a build recipe that removes a few extra files.

On Guix mailing list there is the following bold statement:

To the best of our knowledge, ungoogled-chromium as packaged in guix is completely free

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/2019-04/msg00225.html

Would Parabola devs be willing to replicate Guix build recipe and distribute ungoogled-chromium on Parabola?
Or are there further concerns that haven't been addressed by Guix?

This is tangentially related to #1167, which deals mostly with qt5-webengine. If Guix approach is deemed valid perhaps it could serve as a base for qt5-webengine. Although I reckon that qt5-webengine, being much more limited in scope, ought to include a smaller subset of Chromium than ungoogled-chromium (which is a fully featured browser).


Files

purism.log (2.82 KB) purism.log IRC logs from #purism dllud, 2019-10-26 06:06 PM

Related issues

Related to Packages - Freedom issue #1167: [chromium][qt5-webengine][electron] QTWebgine/Electron embeds "entire Chromium platform"confirmed

Actions

History

#1

Updated by bill-auger 10 months ago

  • Priority changed from bug to wish

yes indeed that would be awesome, IF the guix recipe were generally accepted to be FSDG-fit; but currently, only guix has deemed it to be so - the standing consensus of the FSDG work-group is that neither chromium nor any of its derivatives are convincingly within the FDSG; and by Feb 2018, the one FSDG distro that still distributed it (pureos), had removed it from their standard repos for this reason, closing a long standing freedom-bug report on their bug tracker

even if we wanted chromium, the blocker is that it is on the "List of software that does not respect the Free System Distribution Guidelines"; which offers recommended liberation procedures, and is among the FSDG criteria - if the guix recipe were acceptable, parabola probably would have done the same years ago, before guix and pureos existed; and today it would be guix and pureos duplicating the parabola recipe - the key point though, is that it would not be "the parabola recipe" - it would be presented to the FSDG work-group for evaluation, and if the consensus were that it was an acceptable liberation procedure, then it would become the standard FSDG recommendation for any FSDG distro that wants to package chromium - as of today, no such liberation procedure exists; and the DSFG "Recommended Fix" is still: "Remove program/package. Use GNU IceCat, or equivalent"

until the FSDG recommendation for chromium validates the guix recipe, this packaging request reduces to a duplicate of the original from 7 years ago #140; because no new information has come to light since that time, which would change the FSDG recommendation - if this issue was as easily resolved as guix contends it to be; parabola probably would have added chromium 7 years ago

#2

Updated by bill-auger 10 months ago

  • Related to Freedom issue #1167: [chromium][qt5-webengine][electron] QTWebgine/Electron embeds "entire Chromium platform" added
#3

Updated by oaken-source 10 months ago

frankly, the entire thing is pretty ugly. has always been.

and the involvement of guix in this mess hasn't made anything prettier. I'd be disinclined to trust that whatever guix has done here further than I can throw a chromebook.

#4

Updated by dllud 10 months ago

bill-auger: thanks for the detailed reply.

PureOs added Chromium back again. The replies on the issue imply that and GNUtoo confirmed, a few days ago (Oct 21), that it is available on the repos for both amber and byzantium. I am attaching the relevant IRC logs.

Has Guix presented ever their solution to the FSDG work-group for evaluation? If so, could you point me there? Thanks!

#5

Updated by bill-auger 10 months ago

FWIW, to pre-empt any rebuttals, i contend that this is not an issue for parabola to decide alone; so there is little point to discuss it on this bug tracker - if anyone is truly concerned about resolving this conflict, the appropriate venue to discuss it is the FSDG mailing list - i have raised this issue on that list again just recently (actually, quiliro did); and everyone is invited to voice their opinion

https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2019-10/msg00012.html

#6

Updated by bill-auger 10 months ago

no, guix did not present their work to the work-group - they entered the conversation briefly after some people had been cross-posting to the mailing lists of guix, the FSDG, and GNU, in opposition to the decision to add chromium to guix - when asked to help the work-group to resolve the conflict with the FSDG, the suggestion was that people should read the guile code for the package

not everyone in the work-group is a programmer though; so someone would need to read and understand it, then explain it to the group in plain words, so that everyone can make an informed decision - that is yet to happen though

if the group decides it is acceptable, and most importantly to convnice the FSF to accept it, then it could become the standard recommendation; which would also be in plain words - and if the work-group decides that it is not acceptable, then most importantly, the FSF should step in and ask all endorsed distros to remove it, or revoke their endorsement

i have no strong preference, aside from deferring the matter to the FSDG work-group - any of those outcomes would be fine by me; but the current situation sucks (pardon my french), and it doesnt seem likely that any of those resolutions will come to pass any time soon

#7

Updated by Megver83 3 months ago

This Chromium thing looks like a never ending issue. When I read this, I felt like I needed to propose a real solution:

https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2020-May/007788.html

I've read some issues on the Iridium tracker, and they have Google Safe Browsing enabled by default

https://github.com/iridium-browser/tracker/wiki/Differences-between-Iridium-and-Chromium#google-safe-browsing
https://github.com/iridium-browser/tracker/issues/131

Idk what are the exact differences between Ungoogled Chromium and Iridium, but afaik UC also has Google NSA Browsing (:P) enabled. We should evaluate which one is better in terms of freedom, and in second place in privacy. Both disable a lot of Google crap, so the leftovers like the NSA browsing may not be too difficult to remove. I read that Iridium lends some patches from UC, so my fast-conclusion-brain-CPU tells my that they are like the same, but Iridium is privacy-security focused, nothing more. None of them seem to remove all the non-free crap, just Google stuff. Plus, Iridium's wiki claims that the Google stuff is "disabled", not "removed" (or maybe it's in fact removed, idk, I'm just kind of paranoiac with Chromium)

#8

Updated by freemor 3 months ago

Megver83 I can understand the wish to move this forward. but as far as I know (and I mey be a bit out of the loop these days) The question of the codes freedom WRT FSDG has not yet been cleared up. This isn't just a Google/Privacy thing. It is a fundementally a Does that code meet the 4 freedoms as required issue.

If I've missed something please let me know.

#9

Updated by Megver83 3 months ago

freemor wrote:

Megver83 I can understand the wish to move this forward. but as far as I know (and I mey be a bit out of the loop these days) The question of the codes freedom WRT FSDG has not yet been cleared up. This isn't just a Google/Privacy thing. It is a fundementally a Does that code meet the 4 freedoms as required issue.

If I've missed something please let me know.

Yea, you're right, that's why I said "We should evaluate which one is better in terms of freedom, and in second place in privacy", but I was talking about Iridium and UC to consider them as potential projects that could be forked to create a freed Chromium browser, and in that sense my thought is that Iridium looks like a good candidate for that, only because by forking it we can save us time from removing Google stuff

#10

Updated by bill-auger 3 months ago

that about the size of it - that is where the issue was left
about 3 years ago, when the only FSDG distro which had chromium,
decided to remove it - no new knowledge has come to light since
that time - the only thing that changed, was that one distro
decided to package chromium, without resolving the conflict
within the work-group, so that it could be recommended for other
distros as well; then shortly afterward, the other distro added
it back - unfortunately the FSDG recommendation for chromium is
still: "use icecat"

Also available in: Atom PDF