On 03/25/2013 07:59 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 01:29:13PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote: >> Am Samstag, den 23.03.2013, 13:13 +0100 schrieb Michael Stapelberg: >>> Could you instead package jdownloader itself? >> I tried, but failed miserable. Some libraries needs to be packaged and >> the upstream build system needs to be bent to build on Debian. I would >> love to ditch the launcher and replace it with a proper package. This is >> a lot of work. Until this work is done, I like to have this launcher in >> the contrib archive. This is suboptimal, but better than nothing. > I'm not sure it *is* better than nothing, it could actually be worse. If you > don't personally have the time to "do it properly", why not try and put > together a team to do it? If you do a downloader instead, what you do is > partially and sub-optimally meet the demand for a jdownloader package, which > will dilute the motivation for people to work on a proper solution. Then we > end up stuck with the sub-optimal solution. > > I think downloader packages where required for licensing reasons are an uneasy > necessary evil, but for when the maintainer doesn't have time to package > something? This seems like a really slippery slope to me. I agree with Jonathan. I'd rather not see such a package in Debian. What if everyone was doing that? We'd have a pretty bad main archive. Plus this is a nightmare in terms of security. Or is it that you only plan on providing security support for the downloader itself, and not for the upstream package, which would be even worse?
Also, in what way having a jdownloader-installer package is much better than using what's available upstream at http://jdownloader.org/download/index ? They seem to provide an Ubuntu package at least (but I haven't checked for it). Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/515076f5.2010...@debian.org
