On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/6/24 Laszlo (Laca) Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 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. > > A documented process is nice, but I don't think it should be required. > > I also don't believe that source code should be required either (at > least when the source code is not available). > > I'll give you an example: > > I maintain a closed-source, but free to use, port of an Adventure Game > engine that someone else wrote. The author of the original software > has been kind enough to share access to his source code with me for > the past four to five years. I believe I should be able to contribute > a package for it so that users can enjoy it. I would have no problem > with it being marked somehow as "non-free" or "no source available. > Ubuntu has many binary-only things in their repository for which no > source code is available; I don't see why (within reason) it can't be > the same for us.
Trusted source applies. Ostensibly you are a trusted source :) So this is okay. Regards, Moinak. _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
