Ainsi parlait Alexander Skwar : > So sprach »Ben Bruscella« am 2002-01-17 um 10:15:54 +1100 : > > actually 'illegal' to distribute binaries. Same with lame I think. I > > am sure this will become more common, so how will this situation be > > handled in a distribution like Mandrake? > > Well, I don't see much of a problem - if it's illegal to distribute the > binary, it won't be included. Refering to legality in the case of mplayer, which is of course used only to view backup divx of your own dvd, has always amazed me. The legality of the windows dll package they also distribute seems to bother them a bit less.
> However, the MPlayer guys also give another explanation about why > MPlayer binaries are bad: MPlayer is always optimized for the machine it > was built on. So, if *I*'d build MPlayer binaries, I'd get Athlon > binaries, which won't do any good on Celeron systems. For my own experience, i used a long time a package compiled without any optimisation on several boxes without any problems. And now that i recompile it before use, i would have difficulties to notify real improvements. > Now MPlayer is a rather good example - for apps like this, it would be > good if someone would release a "binary" rpm, which upon installation > (rpm -Uvh) would compile the stuff and then install the optimized > version. > > Hmm, interesting idea... Maybe I'll try to do something in this > direction ;) You're free to test it. However, i think improving urpmi to work with source package, as it is currently evolving, will provide a far better and more general solution. > This would not be illegal, would it? I mean, if the %post section would > compile the stuff, the "binary" (or rather noarch?) RPM would only > distribute the source. > > Alexander Skwar -- Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPG key http://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html
