On 1/27/21 1:35 AM, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote: > This is histrionics. No. Please don't start with the judgmental statements. This is my honest opinion and it's high time you gave me the respect to have my own opinion. You don't have to agree, but that doesn't automatically make what I said a call for attention.
> I don't see why we should ban the proprietary > google-chrome package, which is already somewhat inconvenient to use > because of the AUR, over politics. Where is your respect for the rights > of our users? My respect is where it should be - Google is playing a game with their rights and we should not be tolerating it. That is my honest opinion not aimed at attracting attention. Our quarrels with Google are far away from the end user. Most users will not read the ADP conversation and will just learn that chromium was dropped, not much else. I think if we want to send a message, this is the most effective way to do it. And it seems to already be working. > We're not in the business of telling people they're not allowed to use > the AUR for the express purpose which the AUR was created for. That's a > REALLY hot take. > I agree with you completely on this point. But I also see two issues specific only to this particular situation. 1. What happens when Google sends us a Cease and Desist for having their API keys in a PKGBUILD hosted on the AUR? 2. Aren't we explicitly enabling/helping/giving instructions to someone to build a package in a way that is explicitly forbidden by the new rules in the EULA of Chromium and Google Chrome? We will be hosting a PKGBUILD that does exactly what is forbidden by Google. -- Regards, Konstantin
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
