Re: Packages with non-distributable distfiles

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

John Marino <netbsd%marino.st@localhost> writes:

> On 5/25/2012 10:29, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
>> John Marino<netbsd%marino.st@localhost>  writes:
>>> The point is that it doesn't work for everybody.
>>
>> Yes, so what?
>
> So it broadcasts to the users that pkgsrc quality control sucks,
> and also invokes Animal Farm ideas where some users are more
> equal than others.

Yes, some users are more equal than others one way or another,
not everyone can commit his local changes to the repository.
If you think that quality control comes with no price, you're mistaken,
it takes a good deal of resources.

>> At least each fifth package doesn't build for everybody.
>> Even less packages work. That's not the reason to remove them.
>>
>>> The purpose of a packaging system is to build packages.  The
>>> package in question is failing its purpose.
>>
>> No, it isn't. It does build package. Get the distfile and might build it.
>
>
> I'm sorry, I'm going to continue to believe that packages that
> require distfiles that are illegal to obtain have no place in a
> package system that serves open source operating systems.

You may believe it, but your beliefs should not impede others.
We're not GNU, and this world still has IP laws. Some software has to be
bought (licensed) in order to be used, and there's significant number of
users who don't see anything wrong with it.

Some countries are even that strict that deny what is considered "fair use,"
and thus you have to break the law if you want to use some software.

>> In this particular case you're fighting to remove packages that might be
>> still useful for some people in order to appease your unusual tastes.
>> Removal of packages doesn't fix anything except creating obstacles to
>> people who are or might be using them. Removal of leaf packages doesn't
>> have any impact besides numbers in bulk build report. And these numbers
>> are the only thing that constitutes the "problem" you're trying to "solve."
>
> Yes, my "unusual tastes" of expecting something to work as
> advertised. I don't like the fact that there are really no
> standards at all for what packages have membership, or the fact
> that a single person can say "I want to keep that package" when
> 99 people want to get rid it. Establish some clear standards and
> prune packages when they violate those standards and stop taking
> a poll to find a single person that wants to keep the garbage to
> justify keeping it.

I don't see the reason why users should suffer from purist views of one
or few developers.

What you're striving for is completely different from recent move
towards staged installation as requirement. The latter has clear
technical advantages, but some packages have to be purged out for it.
In constrast, your goal is limited to exclusion of packages
with no other benefit than some kind of stallmanist "freedom."

>> Seriously, you should really find better place to waste your efforts than
>> reducing number of broken packages from around 470 to around 470 with no
>> other effect visible or invisible.
>
> Right, because based on my commits over the last 6 months,
> that's all I've been concentrating on.

There're a lot of other things to work on than chasing packages that
don't work for you personally and shooting them down. Especially,
when they don't affect anything else.

>>> Not that WIP would suffer if you pushed them
>>> there, that thing seems to unregulated in every way.  More
>>> garbage would just be a drop in the bucket.
>>
>> Yes, WIP would suffer.
>>
>> It carries enough stable packages that would be in pkgsrc already, and
>> enough software that could be, if only standards were a bit relaxed.
>> But instead of pushing stable software from WIP to pkgsrc, just like it
>> was meant originally, the opposite is proposed.
>
> LOL.  "if only standards were a bit relaxed?"
> How can they get lower?  Maybe it's hard to get packages in, but
> it's impossible to get them out.  There's not even a formal way
> of doing it -- posting on a mail list, "Hey, how about deleting
> this one?"  is a joke!
>
> How about a form that you can fill out that *has* to be evaluated formally?
>
> I know some might be insulted that I think there are little in
> the way of "standards" in pkgsrc, but I can't help how I see it.
> I'm doing my part to raise that, but there's only so much I can
> do.

Yes, there're a lot of standards. If you expect that everything should
be fixed and written down, you should look for another world, because
this one works differently to such expectations.

In particular, it is expected that new package builds on NetBSD/i386 at
least, and it is required that a package is distributed in files.
This alone places a lot of restrictions. If these were relaxed, I could
have imported some packages that don't work on NetBSD since 1.1-1.4 days,
and a number of packages that fetch source from VCS directly. Personally,
I don't have major problems with using VCS as distribution method, but
some "paranoids" (security infected people) do. So do some other people.


-- 
HE CE3OH...