> On Fri, Sep 18 2015 at 10:54pm, dmccunney wrote:
>> Since the state of the source in an open source product is variable,
>> current source may not build, let alone duplicate the user's binary,
>> so you can't just point at the development repository when people
>> inquire about source.
>> If you keep older binaries around, the source that produced them is
>> more or less required.  Your practice looks like the best compromise.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 4:13 PM,  <userbeit...@abwesend.de> wrote:
> Excuse me for interjecting, but doesn't a source repository do exactly
> that? If I get GitHub correctly, you can go back to any moment in time
> and download the source as it was at this particular moment.
> The question is: why not use e.g. GitHub for FreeDOS related sources?

The issue is that these distributions are assembled from a variety of
sources, not all of which are on GitHub. Some programs may be original
to that distribution, and not from the FreeDOS Project. And some
programs may be small enough that they don't have a source code
repository. So providing the source code is a requirement.

Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to