tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Packages with non-distributable distfiles

On 5/25/2012 13:29, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
John Marino<>  writes:
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.

As quickly as possible because I'm sure others are tired of this conversation:

- I don't consider commit privilege when talking about users.
- QC comes with a price. Infrastructure is needed, rules are needed and must be enforced. This sub-project, pkgsrc, has the resources to do that, but isn't. Any criticism about QC by the user is therefore justified. It's really not taxing to identify a bad package and purge it, so stating how hard that is isn't going to fly very far.

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.

I said nothing about IP laws. I said "illegal to obtain". That has been stated as fact several times. If you have one of these distfiles, you can't legally give it to me. That's going nothing to do with GNU or IP.

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."

Calling me a stallmanist is wrong - I'm not pro-GNU or pro-GPL. If you have an distfile, great, use it. Use it with a copy of the package makefiles made by you before they were purged. What's so difficult about that?

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.

I think you forgot how the whole things started. I marked these NOT-FOR-DRAGONFLY. That's it, I was finished. It was Joerg that put forth a policy proposal (a good one). I support the proposal, but since I've actually not seen any proposal ever get implemented, I'm skeptical this one will either. So I spent 3 minutes per package that violates *our* policy without affecting anyone else and I moved on to fixing those important breakages. So I'm pleased to inform you that the only time I continue to waste on the subject is responding to this thread.

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

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.

I deal with standards in my profession. Strangely, all of them are documented and followed.

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.

While I agree it's polite that new packages build on NetBSD-i386, and I've turned down one that didn't build on NetBSD, there are *plenty* of packages that were intended only for NetBSD and have no hope of building anywhere else, but the same courtesy needs to be extended to other platforms. Agreed, pkgsrc is hosted by NetBSD and a package *should* run on NetBSD if it's technically capable but if its not designed to, that shouldn't restrict it from getting into pkgsrc. So if that's a firm restriction without exception, it's a bad one.

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.

What do they work on?  Linux?

I don't know, it's a complex subject. If pkgsrc sells itself as universal system, it should have provisions for single platform (non-NetBSD) support. In some cases that single platform could be expanded if a developer took interest.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index