tech-pkg archive

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

Re: Options vs. Binary packages

  I was wondering lately wether it was sensible to weaken the doctrine
  of using the build configuration defaults from upstream such that
  options preventing the package from being made available via FTP are
  excluded.  Without looking any further, gnome and mplayer come to
  mind, which are certainly popular and are currently not installable
  from the official binary package repositories.

This is often a tough call.  One one hand, you have a package that needs
ACCETPABLE_LICENSES to build and can't be distributed, but is perhaps
fully functional, and on the other a more free or even Free package with
reduce functionality.

The right fix is for upstream to create a plugin architecture so that we
can have a Free base package and a bunch of plugins, and not impair the
base because some plugin is non-Free.

Failing that, we have to choose.  I have some uncommitted changes to
change mplayer's defaults towards not including codecs that would cause
NO_BIN_ON_FTP to be set.

In general I don't think we have a strong doctrine to follow upstream
recommendations in such cases.

If you have specific suggestions by all means send them in with
discussion of why they are striking the right balance as discussed
above.  I suspect I'm more on the side of omitting features with
troublesome licenses by default.

Attachment: pgpwtMyrEliB6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index