On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 00:10 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 04:39:04PM +1200, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 23:07 -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > The important thing to remember is that *a* package is better than *no > > > package*. Sometimes users won't have a good build recipe. Those > > > packages shouldn't be excluded from availability simply because there > > > is not an easily-reproduceable build recipe. > > > > I think that's a perfectly good reason to be excluded from /contrib. > > It's also a requirement of the most commonly used licenses. > > I'm not talking about pkgbuild recipes, but some sort of documented > > way of building the binaries and access to the sources has to be > > a requirement for /contrib to have any value. > > I would also make peer review of any code changes a requirement. > > That already exists. It's called the SFW consolidation :)
Yes, the SFW consolidation would certainly meet the criteria for inclusion in /contrib. It has lots of other requirements as well, that /contrib shouldn't need. What I'd like to see is somewhere between 'some binary that someone somehow built' and SFW. Laca _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
