Where is the community backports repo for 6?
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
Around the Trisquel 6 release, there was an announcement about a community backports repository to bring in new packages for the LTS version. Since then, there has been no mention of it and I really hope this isn't another thing Ruben is placing on the backburner for 6+ months.
Can we get more details? Can we suggest packages for inclusion anywhere?
If you're interested in taking on the role maintaining it one thing to
do would be to make a Helper for the package in question. That's a start.
Why do you have to build the packages? Why not simply take from existing Launchpad PPAs?
Why must there be source code? Trisquel is a free distribution, after all: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html Trisquel hosts the source code for everything because taking binaries from elsewhere and referring people to that elsewhere to get the source code is problematic.
The majority of PPAs have the source code as well which would be brought in to the community repository as well. Let's take the stable repo for Git as an example: http://ppa.launchpad.net/git-core/ubuntu/pool/main/g/git/
The packages are there. The code is there under a free software license. No need to preach the dogma.
No dogma - I was seriously answering your question because you seemed bewildered by the idea that a free distro would insist on getting the source code first and compiling the binary itself. That's not so strange if you think of it.
Anyway, if you're interested in taking on the role maintaining a Git package one of the first things to do would be to make a Helper for it:
If the software was already created into a .deb file by the author and it is free software, then why do double work creating it again from the source code? Especially if the PPA is maintained by the original author or other respected developer.
Do you know how many people have been assigned already to maintain this?
>If the software was already created into a .deb file by the author and it is free software, then why do double work creating it again from the source code?
To ascertain it can be done with free tools only. After all, that's the reason Trisquel exists.
Yep, and if a package fails to build from source that's a problem so it makes sure you have complete and working source code.
It also lets Trisquel make modifications to it in such cases where modifications are needed to fix bugs or freedom problems.
How do you know that the source code you're seeing is actually what went into that binary and not something different, like with malware or spyware or other problems? You don't. So this helps to make sure that the binary matches the source code.
I'm not aware of any self-respecting distro that doesn't insist on getting source code and compile their packages from that. Otherwise it amounts to a "just take these binaries, put them into the repository, and trust them" type of situation.
Looking at other distros, Debian even compiles their packages *twice in a row*. Compile once, go back, compile again. That was one of the changes with the Lenny version to make sure that the code properly cleans itself up again after compiling.
http://release.debian.org/lenny/goals.txt
# double compilation support
Advocate: Martin Zobel-Helas and Luk Claes
Description: All packages should be able to be built twice in a
row.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires