> Depends how it would be done. Nixos style would probably very > difficult for Debian. Packages with version number in their > name would be no packaging problem at all, but we would have > to make clear, that security support is not likely.
Sure, I don't see a problem with this. > > discussions are going. How on earth did we get from the technical > > problem of > > how to package large application stacks that come with their own > > copies of > > certain "libraries" to packaging software that is neither free nor > > open source? > > I didn't notice anyone suggesting we should do the latter. > > Is was a relevant part of the problem mentioned in Raphaels bug > report: Minified JS libraries without source code. this was one > of the starting points of this discussion. (#890598) Right, although merely technical since there is source code, albeit not very legible or maintainable. > The bug report mentions two orthogonal problems: > - libraries without source code or no license information I might have missed the missing license problem, but I'm pretty noone wants to see unlicensed software in Debian, which also would be illegal. > - libraries which are needed in specific versions This one really worries me. I wonder how many similar cases we already have, where somebody took some code and changed it slightly before including it. > I add a third one: > - libraries that are not packaged, because there are too many The problem is probably less the amount but more the manual work to find the canonical sources. Packing a go "library" for instance does not take a lot of time, because it can be done mostly automated. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael at xmpp dot meskes dot org VfL Borussia! Força Barça! SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
