[Request]Move icecat to Package Database

VisionsOf · 2011-09-13 08:53:34

Hi, I'm new here so I don't know if I'm in the right place, but I'm posting this anyway hoping that I'm not being preposterous.

I've been using GNU Icecat for a while, preferring it to Mozilla Firefox for several reasons:
1)Is Free Software, free of any of Mozilla's trademark/copyright/licensing burdens
2)Maintained by the community
3)It's an official GNU Project
4)Is more sensitive about security issues
5)Does not include any proprietary software. Last time I used Firefox it still had the proprietary crash reporter [EDIT:Disregard that, replaced by Breakpad].
6)It's kept in synch with Firefox development
7)Is bundled with extensions like GNUZilla Privacy Extension and HTTPSEverywhere (which everyone should have)

Before someone calls me a Stallman zealot or something like that or tells me to GTFO and use Parabola or even Debian, my commitment to free software isn't just ideological, I do have practical reasons for using Free Software and Arch has always satisfied my needs in these regards, I don't need to install another distro to do what I've have already been doing since I installed Arch.

Compiling GNU Icecat on my PC takes more than 3 hours. I don't have to do it very often and I prefer compiling over installing binaries anyway, and I'm also aware that it doesn't have to take that long if I avoid re-downloading and re-compiling the entire source. But that's not the point.

I believe GNU Icecat should be moved from the AUR to the Package Database. Right now it's a pretty popular AUR package, with 233 votes and probably way more users. GNU Icecat can perform as well as Mozilla Firefox, has the same features and it's even better in some regards, since it's maintained by the community and it doesn't that doesn't have any corporate interest. Useless features that are implemented right away by Mozilla developers are instead discussed within the Icecat community, making it a much more stable piece of software.

I know that Arch Way and I know what many would answer - that mine is just a political request and that icecat has no real advantage over firefox and so on. But I really believe that GNU Icecat is a better browser than Mozilla Firefox for the reasons which I stated above, and request that the former be moved from the AUR to the Package Database. I am ready to accept a "no", but please tell me why. Thanks for listening.

Last edited by VisionsOf (2011-09-13 08:55:16)

ethail · 2011-09-13 09:33:35

I think you should consider :

a) You need a Trusted User or Arch Developer to adopt it in order to be moved from AUR to [community] or [extra]

b) If no TU or Dev is interested on it, it won't get to binary repos.
b1) Some packages will never get to the repos whatever the number of votes they have (i.e. AUR helpers, packages that cause others to break...)

c) Why don't ask someone to make an unofficial repo with icecat binaries?

d) I have the feeling that there is something else that I don't recall right now

Last edited by ethail (2011-09-13 09:39:40)

VisionsOf · 2011-09-13 10:14:58

ethail wrote:

I think you should consider :
a) You need a Trusted User or Arch Developer to adopt it in order to be moved from AUR to [community] or [extra]
b) If no TU or Dev is interested on it, it won't get to binary repos.
b1) Some packages will never get to the repos whatever the number of votes they have (i.e. AUR helpers, packages that cause others to break...)
c) Why don't ask someone to make an unofficial repo with icecat binaries?
d) I have the feeling that there is something else that I don't recall right now

Let's see.

a)Can be arranged. Anyone interested? I lurk around here but I don't know anybody I could ask.

b)Depends on a
b1)As far as I know, GNU Icecat isn't even in conflict with Firefox, let alone make it break. (although having them both makes little sense)

c)I think that wouldn't be enough - I don't have a problem with updating Icecat from the AUR or having to compile it, I could even start a binary repository myself if I wanted. But I see no valid reason for which GNU Icecat shouldn't be in the PKGDB - even if it replaced Mozilla Firefox entirely like it does in FSF-approved distros, nobody would notice. In fact, I believe replacing the firefox package with icecat would be a great idea, since there is no reason for preferring firefox aside from the fact that most users are unaware of the existence of icecat and "firefox" is the first thing that comes to their minds. Actually, if "pacman -S firefox" installed icecat instead of firefox, nobody would notice, since to a regular user they would look just the same.
I am not anyway advocating for the substitution of firefox with icecat, because I'm aware that migration would be inconvenient (not actually, it would just mean moving some conf files and directories around and making an alias), even if I would be in favor of it. I understand that Arch is not necessarily affiliated with Free Software and that many people actually don't care about software being Free, Open Source or proprietary as long as it works - for example, Dropbox is at the moment the #3 most voted AUR package and it's proprietary, and so are very popular applications like Google Earth, ATI Catalyst, Adobe AIR, etc. But for the reasons I previously mentioned I think GNU Icecat does deserve a spot in the PKGDB and not just because it would give more people the choice to embrace Free Software but also because it's a browser of its own, just like OpenJDK is a JDK of its own and LibreOffice is an Office Suite of its own. It's a fork and not just a rebranding and many people would actually choose to use it over Firefox, why not give them the chance to do it comfortably?

ethail · 2011-09-13 11:10:25

VisionsOf wrote:

a)Can be arranged. Anyone interested? I lurk around here but I don't know anybody I could ask.

Mailing list or bugtracker filling a feature request are both good places for that. I think that devs are known for not populating the forum.

VisionsOf wrote:

b1)As far as I know, GNU Icecat isn't even in conflict with Firefox, let alone make it break. (although having them both makes little sense)

That was just said for general consideration, whatever the package is

VisionsOf wrote:

c)I think that wouldn't be enough - I don't have a problem with updating Icecat from the AUR or having to compile it, I could even start a binary repository myself if I wanted. But I see no valid reason for which GNU Icecat shouldn't be in the PKGDB

[...]

VisionsOf wrote:

why not give them the chance to do it comfortably?

Seems to me that you're not understanding the concept of unofficial repo or I am confused by your concept of Package Database. If you take a look at pacman.conf, you see the several repositories, but that's not all. You can add whatever kind of repo there, as example:

 [heftig]
Server = http://pkgbuild.com/~heftig/repo/$arch

That repo contains among others the -zen kernel, but there are other unofficial binary repos populated with binaries built from AUR packages, see the PF or CK repo

And that repo, is treated as if it were core, extra or community, the same way by pacman. That in the case someone wants to build that repo and/or your request gets denied.

Some sections of this post make you sound like the "Stallman zealot" you want not to be called as, i.e. replacing firefox for icecat and nobody noticing. That kind of arguments I feel that are going to make you loose your points about including it on the official repos.

In a few words:

Ask nicely in the mailing list or bugtracker, if denied, do it yourself (unofficial repo)

VisionsOf · 2011-09-13 12:00:34

Seems to me that you're not understanding the concept of unofficial repo or I am confused by your concept of Package Database. If you take a look at pacman.conf, you see the several repositories, but that's not all.
That repo contains among others the -zen kernel, but there are other unofficial binary repos populated with binaries built from AUR packages, see the PF or CK repo

Ok, my fault, sorry if I expressed myself unclearly. I was talking about official binary repos. I was aware of unofficial repos but I never used them because my Arch configuration is really minimal and the PKGDB+AUR already provide for most of my needs, and when they don't I handle the installations myself.

Thanks for your suggestions for the mailing lists, I think I'll hit them.

I don't want to bring the issue any more than needed because it's inappropriate and I already said I didn't want to sparkle flame wars but many distros already have icecat as their "firefox" package - Debian does that and I believe that even Ubuntu at some point did that, although I'm not sure if it still does. Icecat and Firefox are identical in everything aside from few internal and configuration differences and of course, the branding. They both are Free Software released under the same kind of license, three actually. The only reason I have for preferring one to the other is that GNU Icecat is maintained by the community and I'm actually able to get involved in its development rather than sit and watch and wait for my patches to be refused, which is what "open source" corporations like Google, Oracle and MozillaCorp do with their products. It's reasonable to expect to have control over your creation but the input those companies accept from their users is sometimes minimal, they prefer to have guys on their payroll to do the coding rather than honest and passionate independent programmers. Look at what happened recently with OpenOffice and maybe Java as well. I personally don't have the time to check the source for all the software I use so I rely on the Free Software community to help me, and contribute when I can, and to me that's what all the Free Software movement is all about. You don't like something, modify it and make it work. I think it's a very practical view on software and I'm sorry if I sounded like I was preaching for Stallman, which anyway is a noble act that has sadly been criminalized and vilified in the Open Source community just because of the hate spread by open source "advocates" like Google and Eric S. Raymond, which should burn in their personal hell for creating a war between "Open Source" and "Free Software", with the former being cool and the latter being cancerous and viral when in the start it was just about people sharing their source codes.

Last edited by VisionsOf (2011-09-13 12:01:24)

z0id · 2011-09-13 12:04:39

If it's any use, Icecat is packaged by Parabola GNU/Linux

ngoonee · 2011-09-14 04:25:30

VisionsOf wrote:

Seems to me that you're not understanding the concept of unofficial repo or I am confused by your concept of Package Database. If you take a look at pacman.conf, you see the several repositories, but that's not all.
That repo contains among others the -zen kernel, but there are other unofficial binary repos populated with binaries built from AUR packages, see the PF or CK repo
Ok, my fault, sorry if I expressed myself unclearly. I was talking about official binary repos. I was aware of unofficial repos but I never used them because my Arch configuration is really minimal and the PKGDB+AUR already provide for most of my needs, and when they don't I handle the installations myself.
Thanks for your suggestions for the mailing lists, I think I'll hit them.
I don't want to bring the issue any more than needed because it's inappropriate and I already said I didn't want to sparkle flame wars but many distros already have icecat as their "firefox" package - Debian does that and I believe that even Ubuntu at some point did that, although I'm not sure if it still does. Icecat and Firefox are identical in everything aside from few internal and configuration differences and of course, the branding. They both are Free Software released under the same kind of license, three actually. The only reason I have for preferring one to the other is that GNU Icecat is maintained by the community and I'm actually able to get involved in its development rather than sit and watch and wait for my patches to be refused, which is what "open source" corporations like Google, Oracle and MozillaCorp do with their products. It's reasonable to expect to have control over your creation but the input those companies accept from their users is sometimes minimal, they prefer to have guys on their payroll to do the coding rather than honest and passionate independent programmers. Look at what happened recently with OpenOffice and maybe Java as well. I personally don't have the time to check the source for all the software I use so I rely on the Free Software community to help me, and contribute when I can, and to me that's what all the Free Software movement is all about. You don't like something, modify it and make it work. I think it's a very practical view on software and I'm sorry if I sounded like I was preaching for Stallman, which anyway is a noble act that has sadly been criminalized and vilified in the Open Source community just because of the hate spread by open source "advocates" like Google and Eric S. Raymond, which should burn in their personal hell for creating a war between "Open Source" and "Free Software", with the former being cool and the latter being cancerous and viral when in the start it was just about people sharing their source codes.

Suggestion: paragraphing improves readability.

In Arch (as previously mentioned) its very simple, a developer/TU has to be interested (for a package to move into the repos), else it stays in the AUR. Substitution of icecat for firefox is unlikely, since that would be political rather than practical, and would require the consent of the whole dev team (good luck on that one).

Non-dev/TU members of the Arch community can't do much about this besides creating unofficial repos (which are not in any way at odds with maintaining a 'very minimal' system), but of course there's a trust issue with those as well.

Montague · 2012-03-21 15:47:08

Last edited by Montague (2015-07-28 02:44:45)

Allan · 2012-03-21 20:35:51

pacman -U <url of icecat package> would be a much better way...

Montague · 2012-03-21 21:20:37

Last edited by Montague (2015-07-28 02:44:58)

cfr · 2012-03-24 02:53:37

You can't consistently claim both:
1) IceCat is superior to Firefox
2) IceCat is essentially identical to Firefox.

Have Debian really abandoned IceWeasel as their Firefox substitute?

Are prebuilt binaries provided for languages other than English? If IceCat is based on Firefox, I wouldn't expect the language pack to work properly here. But the prebuilt binary from Mozilla works fine.

Now if there was a free alternative to acroread, I'd be much more motivated...

My university system already tells me that my system is not supported (because I run "Unix"). I don't fancy my chances if I try to convince it to use IceCat... Nor do I fancy my chances with IT support...

I've got Debian on my old laptop but this is the real world and I have to get stuff done.

quasifilmie · 2012-05-21 23:05:02

cfr wrote:

Now if there was a free alternative to acroread, I'd be much more motivated...

Evince? Okular? IMO, they are better and no where near as bloated.

kyla · 2012-05-27 17:41:32

In regards to what montague wrote about using parabola: you can just set it to use one of their libre mirrors for the libre repository, no need to go moving your normal mirror list around.

Jristz · 2012-05-27 21:33:57

I aggre in one think: alternatives
All need alternatives, for all thipe of thinks
acroreader = epdfview
flash = gnash
gnome = kde = xfce = lxde = razor-qt (AUR)
filleroller = xarchiver (AUR u.u)
Firefox = other browser?, but wath happen if I want a xul-based browser?
is the only point that agree

other option is set you oun repo (or submit a PKGBUILD to AUR w all packages that you think need a replace or an alternative

If you want and no oter want it, take the initiative and make an alternative...or repo

Last edited by Jristz (2012-05-27 21:36:14)

cfr · 2012-05-27 22:06:09

quasifilmie wrote:

cfr wrote:
Now if there was a free alternative to acroread, I'd be much more motivated...

Evince? Okular? IMO, they are better and no where near as bloated.

Okular is my default PDF viewer but it cannot replace acroread. It doesn't work in the same way for presentations and it has trouble with PDF files which acroread displays OK. Printing from acroread is also preferable. I suspect the display issue is font related. The printing issue is to do with the general awfulness of QT (and, hence, KDE) print dialogs and functionality.

The make-or-break issue for me is the presentation issue, though. Okular does not allow me to fill in a form in full screen mode. acroread does. I can't manage without this functionality. I tried out every pdf reader/viewer/editor I could find (though I'm sure there are more) and none had a decent full-screen mode which permitted filling out a form.

(A replacement which let me save the completed form would be especially welcome since acroread doesn't let me do that.)

Arch Linux

#1 2011-09-13 08:53:34

[Request]Move icecat to Package Database

#2 2011-09-13 09:33:35

Re: [Request]Move icecat to Package Database

#3 2011-09-13 10:14:58

Re: [Request]Move icecat to Package Database

#4 2011-09-13 11:10:25

Re: [Request]Move icecat to Package Database

#5 2011-09-13 12:00:34

Re: [Request]Move icecat to Package Database

#6 2011-09-13 12:04:39

Re: [Request]Move icecat to Package Database

#7 2011-09-14 04:25:30

Re: [Request]Move icecat to Package Database

#8 2012-03-21 15:47:08

Re: [Request]Move icecat to Package Database

#9 2012-03-21 20:35:51

Re: [Request]Move icecat to Package Database

#10 2012-03-21 21:20:37

Re: [Request]Move icecat to Package Database

#11 2012-03-24 02:53:37

Re: [Request]Move icecat to Package Database

#12 2012-05-21 23:05:02

Re: [Request]Move icecat to Package Database

#13 2012-05-27 17:41:32

Re: [Request]Move icecat to Package Database

#14 2012-05-27 21:33:57

Re: [Request]Move icecat to Package Database

#15 2012-05-27 22:06:09

Re: [Request]Move icecat to Package Database

Board footer