Tuesday, 23 July 2013

Re: Source packages appropriate by default?

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 06:59:43 AM Robie Basak wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 01:51:46AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I think most developers would believe the current situation is
> > appropriate.
>
> I disagree.
>
> > By default users have the same access to source and binary packages and
> > for a free software distribution, that is the ethically correct approach.
> Indeed, but you never replied to my original response to your concern.
> By "same access", do you specifically require the mechanism to be to
> keep users' local apt caches maintained with source entries? If so, why
> is such a mechanism necessary to fit the spirit of Free Software? If the
> user still has easy access to the source, why is this not sufficient?
>
> I'm happy to discuss what "easy access" might actually mean, but I see
> no reason that it should require the waste of users' bandwidth and time.

Sorry. I didn't mean to ignore you.

What's easy? For example, I think "install more packages to get the tools to
get the source" (use pull-lp-source in ubuntu-dev-tools) doesn't qualify.
There are tons of documentation all over the web and other places as well that
assume apt-get source works.

I think access using installed tools that are normally used for the job (wget
is installed (I think) by default, but I don't think having to go to a web
page to find a URL and then wget'ing the components of the source package is
easy either.

So those are a couple of examples of what I think is definitely not what we
want. I'm open to discussion about alternate ways to preserve easy access to
the source.

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel