On Sun, 28 May 2000, Joey Hess wrote: > Alan W. Irwin wrote: > > One current problem for Debian (unlike rpm-based distributions) is it does > > not have a standard source-package format. > > You are quite mistaken. Debian may not have a source package format that > rpm users can easly understand. However, it does have a source package > format, one which is designed to minimize bandwith usage, unlike src.rpm > packages, and one which is instantly familiar to any unix sysadmin who > is familiar with .tar.gz files, patches, and RFC 822. > > http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/packaging.html/ch-sourcepkg.html >
You should not jump to conclusions. You completely mistook my meaning. I am not referring to standard tar.gz and patch files (which are excellent for source distribution as far as I am concerned). As I made clear in my letter (see next sentences that you quoted) I was referring to the standardization of the *source tree contained within those formats*. > > My advice to them is they couldn't go wrong by > > quickly adopting a standard debianized source tree format that is consistent > > with the debuild command. Once such a tree is set up, the debuild commands > > allows you to create the binary deb(s) with one easy command. > > Um, yes, we already have that, as I just stated > which is why the debuild command (or more > generally, the dpkg-source command) already exists. But my impression is that not every debianized source tree can be used with the debuild command. For example, can you use debuild with the debianized pine source tree that is distributed with Debian? When I built it a number of weeks ago I recall some other means was documented for building the debs so I used that instead. Thus my impression is there are a variety of debianized source tree formats. I view this as a weakness. Thus, I would be happy to be proved wrong by you on this issue. > > You may also take a look at apt-get source -b package, which downloads > and builds a package automatically. Does this work with every debianized source tree? If so, that is wonderful. Of course that also means either I will be proved wrong above, or else apt-get recognizes the variety of debianized source-tree formats. Which? > > > Once a standard source package format was adopted for Debian, then I think > > KDE source distribution could be a wonderful poster-child of that standard > > format. Official adoption of the KDE source package by Debian > > KDE, in source form or not, cannot be an official part of Debian until > its license problems are resolved. Source is great, but you have to be > ale to leagally build it, link it against the required libraires, use it, > and distriute binaries to others, or it is not free enough to be part > of the Debian distribution. I am glad we agree that source is great. But the rest of your sentences that I have just quoted are the nub of our disagreement. I believe the GPL says nothing about the *private* use of software. An individual is allowed to do anything they want with it so long as they do not publish the results. This is the essence of the intellectual freedom that attracts so many to the GPL. So once the source is distributed to me, I as an individual can legally build it, link against any libraries I like, and employ it for any personal use I see fit so long as I do not publish the results. To add some credibility to your argument you have thrown in "distribute binaries to others". Of course, if such distribution occurred a whole set of GPL rules kicks in, but I think this is a non-issue since few if any Debian users will actually do this once they have built KDE on their own system. Thus, I don't think there is the slightest license issue at stake here over the issue of distributing the GPLed KDE source. Fundamentally, you cannot use the GPL to justify supressing the distribution of GPLed source code. You indeed may want to supress KDE source distribution via Debian for emotional reasons, but I hope for Debian's sake that you rethink this. The fact is KDE is doing fine without Debian, but will Debian's future be fine without some sort of interaction with the large and growing pool of KDE talent? In my view, participating in the distribution of debianized KDE source code is an excellent way for Debian to interact with the KDE community without violating any licenses, and I hope that Debian takes advantage of this opportunity.
