Rex Dieter wrote:
In this case, a *binary rpm* is what is being distributed... the "preferredNo, It doesn't have to be a specfile. It can be any script or config files that successfuly creates the binaries from the sources. One of these is included in the tar file.
form of the work" and "scripts used to control compilation and installation" is rpm specfile and/or src.rpm.
So it's not *your* prefferred format. Big deal. It's the trend and probably most practiced method of source distrubution and building since sources were being distributed and built.
The fact that after they build the binaries, the build an RPM to distibute them in, doesn't change anything.
I suppose if you knew for a fact that a specfile existed, and that that was what was used by RealVNC to build the sources and build the RPM, then you could ask for that. I'm not sure you can demand it.
But in many cases the specfile doesn't even exist. The script or Makefile that is included coudl know how to make the binary RPM. That would render the specfile unneeded.
As a mtter of fact, most open source projects probably don't include these. Most of the time the people (The re-distributors) who repackage them into linux distributions create them to document the specific (out of the many) way they built thier binary RPM. I do beleive they must offer the sources, but even they aren't required to provide the specfile. Do you have any statements from RMS or the FSF that imply they beleive the GPL requires this?
How does what RealVNC distribute currently satisfy the definition of "SourceThey only have to provied the source for the program itself. Not for the RPM.
Code" for binary rpms?
-Kyle _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [email protected] To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
