Really the package suggests a non-existent package which is not an issue.
Some package exist outside of PureOS which happen to contain non-free code, but the relevant issue here is whether PureOS is encouraging the use of non-free code which is not the case.
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Advanced Search
Apr 25 2021
Nov 13 2018
Revert to track only freedom issue (not the related issue of it not being a freedom issue after all).
Revert to track only freedom issue (not the related issue of it not being a freedom issue after all).
Aug 23 2018
Ah: Dropping the fork was done long ago in T330.
audex does not suggest a non-free package, only a non-existent one.
foo2zjs does not suggest a non-free package, only a non-existent one.
engrampa does not suggest a non-free package, only a non-existent one.
doublecmd does not suggest a non-free package, only a non-existent one.
clamav does not suggest a non-free package, only a non-existent one.
When addressed, this issue should be flaged as "invalid" (not "resolved").
q4wine does not suggest a non-free package, only a non-existent one.
Apr 11 2018
Feb 16 2018
Reopening but lowering to low priority: Package is currently fixed but likely to be dropped (see T330) and may then reappear and if so need fix reapplied.
Nov 10 2017
Status "invalid" more accurate than "closed".
Nov 9 2017
Possibly libunrar0 is nonfree in some other universe (or in ancient times?), but it is non-existent in PureOS as well as (contemporary at least) Debian.