On 05/01/2010 9:22 AM, David R. Morrison wrote:
1) Should packages marked as Restrictive be able to check mirrors if
they can't find the source upstream?
If the sources are legally redistributable and therefore mirror-able,
that sounds reasonable.
There are definitely cases in which no
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 08:20:25AM -0400, Hanspeter Niederstrasser wrote:
On 05/01/2010 9:22 AM, David R. Morrison wrote:
1) Should packages marked as Restrictive be able to check mirrors if
they can't find the source upstream?
If the sources are legally redistributable and therefore
libnessus3-ssl is marked as Restrictive (links to OpenSSL) and the
source is now unavailable upstream (license change for newer versions
and dead FTP server). fink fetch libnessus3-ssl then fails to build,
only checking Source: defined in the .info file.
However, the tarball _is_ available
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/1/10 7:07 AM, Hanspeter Niederstrasser wrote:
libnessus3-ssl is marked as Restrictive (links to OpenSSL) and the
source is now unavailable upstream (license change for newer versions
and dead FTP server). fink fetch libnessus3-ssl then
On May 1, 2010, at 6:13 AM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/1/10 7:07 AM, Hanspeter Niederstrasser wrote:
libnessus3-ssl is marked as Restrictive (links to OpenSSL) and the
source is now unavailable upstream (license change for newer versions
and
David R. Morrison wrote:
[]
However, I can't think of a case other than the openssl nonsense
where this would apply. And many openssl packages have been
converted to use the openssl which ships with os x (rather than
fink's) which makes it ok to distribute. So I'm thinking that it
