On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:27 AM, S h i v <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/6/24 Venky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>> A build recipe would still be useful in this case since we would >>> need to do stuff like unpacking the binary package and republishing >>> it to a pkg repository. >> >> 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. >> > > Not really in the context of a repository. If a person doesn't have > proper build instructions but has magically created a binary, then > *too many questions* arise around it to be included in a repo. > If the person has build instructions but not in a form suitable for > the build setup that will be decided for contrib, then some other > contributor familiar with the setup helps the person create the build > recipe.
In addition by accepting binaries without source one will be setting up oneself for legal issues. How can you be certain that the submitter has not mixed up sources with incompatible licenses while building the binary - not by malice but by ignorance. Binaries may only be accepted in the rare case from highly trusted sources. For eg. I will personally NOT accept pure binaries for inclusion in BeleniX except for the limited case of ON-Closed-Bins from SUN (apart from other intentions of being FOSS). Regards, Moinak. > > -Shiv > _______________________________________________ > pkg-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss > _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
