On 07/23/2013 12:02 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 06:59:43 AM Robie Basak wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 01:51:46AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> I think most developers would believe the current situation is >>> appropriate. >> >> I disagree. >> >>> By default users have the same access to source and binary packages and >>> for a free software distribution, that is the ethically correct approach. >> Indeed, but you never replied to my original response to your concern. >> By "same access", do you specifically require the mechanism to be to >> keep users' local apt caches maintained with source entries? If so, why >> is such a mechanism necessary to fit the spirit of Free Software? If the >> user still has easy access to the source, why is this not sufficient? >> >> I'm happy to discuss what "easy access" might actually mean, but I see >> no reason that it should require the waste of users' bandwidth and time. > > Sorry. I didn't mean to ignore you. > > What's easy? For example, I think "install more packages to get the tools to > get the source" (use pull-lp-source in ubuntu-dev-tools) doesn't qualify. > There are tons of documentation all over the web and other places as well > that > assume apt-get source works. >
I agree, it would be nice to keep existing things working. > So those are a couple of examples of what I think is definitely not what we > want. I'm open to discussion about alternate ways to preserve easy access to > the source. > What if we disabled default source fetching but changed apt-get source to offer to turn them back on when it was run? -Scott Ritchie -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
