[gobolinux-users] Source repositories and other suggestions

Jonas Karlsson jonka750 at student.liu.se
Thu Nov 23 23:29:13 UTC 2006


On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 04:17:42 +0100, Martin O.B. <martinobal at gmail.com>  
wrote:
>
> There's another problem I've found: lots of broken links in the recipes.
> For instance, a project changes from .gz to .bz2 and there you are, a
> broken link. How about having an official repo for source files, which
> simply acts as a mirror of the official project's site (no tweaking) but
> ensures no broken links in Compile, for users who dont need to have the
> very latest version? Whenever a developer adds a package to this "mirror
> repository" he would check that he can compile it without missing
> dependecies, otherwise add those dependecies to the repo aswell.
>
Just recently read an article/discussion about OpenSSL vs GnuTSL  
(http://curl.hostingzero.com/legal/distro-dilemma.html), which made me  
read some parts of the GPL  
(http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html) more thoroughly and one  
thing that caught my eye was the end of section 3. Section 3 reads that if  
one distributes binaries in any form it should always come with the  
source. The end section says that if one makes the binaries available for  
download it suffices to make the sources available for download from the  
same place. Does this mean that we actually have to have a source repo or  
is it enough to point to where the user can get the code?

> Now, excuse me if I don't make sense, but if I got it right, there's
> this kind of problem with dependencies: You have applicaton app1 which
> depends on library lib1.1 which in turn depends on library lib2.1. Maybe
> app1.1 insists that it needs lib1.1 and does not accept later versions
> by default, to provide better stability. But lib1.1 accepts to be linked
> to any later version of lib2, that is, it assumes backwards
> compatibility. So, if lib2.2 accidentaly breaks backwards compatibility
> for the purpose of lib1.1, then app1 is broken, even if it didn't accept
> later versions of lib1. Is it possible to  use an option in Compile, so
> that it recursively chooses the officially required version of each
> dependecy, so that this problem is avoided? You could always have the
> option of recursively update your dependecies to the latest versions,
> and if some application breaks, recompile it and tell it to downgrade to
> its latest working configuration, or in worst case, to recursively use
> only officially tested versions of each dependency. From there, you
> could also have the option to upgrade only security-critical libraries,
> from a list automatically fetched by Compile.
>
I guess you're saying that you want a version limit for dependencies so  
that one doesn't upgrade to far and break apps. This is possible with  
CheckDependencies, which André already said (but I thought I might clarify  
:) )

-- 
/Jonas

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/


More information about the gobolinux-users mailing list