|
From: Johnny A. S. <jo...@so...> - 2018-04-02 13:31:45
|
On Monday 2. April 2018 14.39, Christoph Lechleitner wrote:
> Am 02.04.18 um 12:41 schrieb Johnny A. Solbu:
> With arch independent there's no real difference between binary and source packages ;-)
Yes, there is.
You can't take a deb file and rebuild it, for that you need the source package.
> Adding source repo support to the underlying software ("PBA") would require a lot of developer time
We use reprepro for this «reprepro includedsc <repo name (jessie/wheezy/whatever)> package_version.dsc», and it add the source files in the proper repo all by itself.
> and some valuable disc space.
I can understand the diskspace argument.
And unless you are the copyright holder and publish the packages for everyone to download, you often have no choice but to provide the source packages.
GPLv2 §3 and GPLv3 §6 states that one need to ship the source package, /or/ provide a written offer valid for 3 full years after last binary release stating that anyone asking for the source package should get it. Anything else is a violation of the GPL license[1].
> > If one want to make changes or customize the deb package,
>
> ... then one should and would use the upstream git anyway (which is fully debianzed) or maybe use the source packages from Debian or a Debian derivate.
Debian provides tools available for automatically checking for the latest version, download it, apply any patches and declare it ready for build.
It is this process Debian packagers use for updating package sources.
We do this on our public local repo, for our servers.
[1] https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html – section 4
--
Johnny A. Solbu
web site, http://www.solbu.net
PGP key ID: 0x4F5AD64DFA687324
|
