[gobolinux-users] Source repositories and other suggestions

Michael Homer gobo-users-dufus at wotfun.com
Thu Nov 23 23:56:15 UTC 2006


On 11/24/06, Jonas Karlsson <jonka750 at student.liu.se> wrote:
> 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?
My understanding is that it's not, because the external repository
could go down at any time (there's an FAQ on fsf.org that addresses
this topic, I think). It is sufficient to provide a written offer to
supply the source code to anybody you've distributed a binary to at no
more than cost.


More information about the gobolinux-users mailing list