tech-pkg archive

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

Re: Packages with non-distributable distfiles

John Marino <> writes:

> 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.

No, this project doesn't have resources. Providing packages
for primary operating systems takes all available resources.

> 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.

Sorry? Would you prove this statement?

It is really easy. Just setup pbulk cluster for NetBSD/i386 and
NetBSD/amd64 for versions 4.0.1, 5.0.2, 5.1, and 6.0_BETA2,
and build packages for release branch and for trunk periodically and
timely for several combinations of PKG_APACHE_DEFAULT,
and few others.

>>> 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.

"Distfiles that are illegal to obtain" is about IP laws. Otherwise you
can just go into the 'net and find almost anything.

>> 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?

Copying files over and over is more difficult if I can just fetch them
along with pkgsrc. That's what is difficult about it.

That's harsh contrast to your proposal. You could easily live without
paying any attention to those packages that don't even show in bulk
reports, unless you make it so.

>>> 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.

And you were pointed that it is completely wrong since they are not
"not-for-dragonfly." They are packages with restricted access.
What you did is you added bug.

In particular, the package in consideration, cad/simian-docs, installs
one single PDF file. It is perfectly usable on any operating system
supported by pkgsrc, DragonFly included. Before your change, the package
built, after your change it doesn't. You have broken the package.

Or do you mean that this package is useless since one cannot display PDF
when using your toy operating system?


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index