Marc Balmer wrote:
I was - as naddy pointed out - very outspoken on this issue during c2k6.
And I still am.
I am against ports that download pieces of code that do not have their
source form in /usr/ports/distfiles.
I want at least to be able to see what the program does by inspecting
the sources. And I do not want to rely on any third party webpage to
get at the sources. I want it in distfiles. And, I want to be able to
apply patches, if needed.
We do not hurt our users by requiring the availability of source code.
It's only the package builders that need the jdk installed. Our users
are told to use packages anywas. They just install the package.
But the port should never, ever, rely on precompiled stuff. Not for
Java, not for Python, not for Ruby. And not for anything else.
I disagree here.
The ports system should be a way to help getting 3rd party software to
run on OpenBSD, with no restrictions other than the one imposed by the
3rd party provider themselves.
The port system could have more clear flags than the PERMIT_* ones to
mark the packages for which no source code is available, and those for
which source code is available, but were built from pre-built binaries.
This would allow people to choose their application according to their
own policy.
SOURCE_CODE_AVAILABLE=Distfile|<URL>|No
BUILT_FROM_SOURCE_CODE=Yes|No
Distfile: litteral meaning that ${DISTFILE} is the source code
<URL>: Url of the source code if ${DISTFILE} is not source
And put that in the PLIST.
> What's next? Binary only software with NOT_FOR_ARCHES set so it runs
> only the arch the binary is for?
So you're suggesting rm -rf
/sys/compat/{bsdos,freebsd,ibcs2,osf1,sunos,ultrix,hpux,linux,netbsd}
too ?
--
Matthieu Herrb
