Re: Packages with non-distributable distfiles

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:55:56PM +0200, John Marino wrote:
 > Infrastructure is needed, rules are needed and must be enforced.
 > This sub-project, pkgsrc, has the resources to do that, but isn't.

Formal rules are needed only when there's a social problem that cannot
be solved by community consensus.

Again: what *problem* are you trying to solve?

 > >>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'm inclined to agree with asau@. The criterion you're applying seems
to be based on whether the software is Free.

 > 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.

The issue is that by marking the packages that way, rather than with a
semantically-meaningful tag (which would need to be implemented)
you're adding to the entropy of the system. In a few years when this
little argument is long forgotten, it will be (at best) a hassle to
track down why all these packages are marked NOT-FOR-DRAGONFLY.

A semantically-meaningful tag would also allow these packages to stop
polluting the bulk build results on *all* platforms, not just yours,
without making them unavailable.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost