On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 03:04:20PM +0100, J Fernyhough wrote: > On 21 May 2013 13:55, Robie Basak <robie.ba...@canonical.com> wrote: > > What if we provided a reasonable message if no deb-src lines are > > defined, with a single simple command to add them and run "apt-get > > update" for you? > > I don't think it would even need that - software-properties (Software > & Updates) already has the necessary checkbox. All that is needed to > enable sources is to tick that box.
Provided that the user knows that the box is there. Otherwise, it risks making the availability of the source obscure, and this is where I agree with Scott in that it is against the spirit of free software to make source availability obscure. I'm not going to make a subjective judgement as to what constitutes obscurity here. I tend to edit sources.list directly, so it's not really my area. There's also the server use case to consider. We don't have the software-properties GUI, which is why I proposed the message on an "apt-get source" failure due to no sources being defined. > > From a technical point of view, does mirroring the deb lines into > > deb-src lines work in all cases? Would doing so break anything? > > This is effectively what Software Sources does under-the-hood. Perhaps we could implement enabling the sources easily from the CLI using the underlying Python library? software-properties-common and python3-software-properties are seeded on Server. Robie -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
