Re: Packages with non-distributable distfiles

[John Marino <mfl-commissioner%marino.st@localhost>]

On 5/20/2012 18:00, Edgar Fuß wrote:
> > The issue is the combination of non-redistributable and missing from
> > upstream.
> Well, then call it DISTFILE_UNAVAILABLE or whatever.
>
> > Note: the package is only useful for users who *already* have the distfile
> Yes, exactly.
>
> My impression was that most of the people would like those packages go away 
> (they're of no use to them, they break bulk builds, they get asked why the 
> distfile isn't available) while a few people would like it to stay because they 
> do have the distfile.
> So why don't keep the package and mark it as "this is only useful to you if you 
> somehow do have the distfile"?



Or just make a stand and tell those lucky few with the distfile to keep 
their own copy of the package makefiles along with the distfile (and 
those are always retrievable through CVS).  I don't understand this need 
to cater to the minority.  This packrat/hoarding approach is messy - 
prune these essentially dead packages already.

John