2010/1/27 Moritz Wilhelmy <c...@wzff.de>: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:28:06PM +0100, Simon Wesp wrote: >> 2010/1/27 Pierre Chapuis <catw...@archlinux.us> >> >> > I think it's the job of the packagers to take care of that in each >> > distribution. If they want to rename the binary to surf-browser or >> > suckless-surf, they can do it easily. >> > >> Of course, this is easy and so on, but this is definitly not a distribution >> issue! >> >> It can be solved in the distributing level, but it would be more helpfull to >> solve this on a global level. > > I guess the easiest attempt for distributions to distribute suckless code is > not distributing it at all. > People using suckless software are usually capable of configuring it by > themselves, > which means they have to edit the sourcecode and recompile it anyway.
There are people that aren't interested in building from source, and those are one focus in my stali efforts. For suckless.org software it is perfectly simple to build them from source though and very fast and straight-forward. Unfortunately this isn't true in the general case which is why the majority of people will always end up with a binary distro/system anyways. Cheers, Anselm
