On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 06:59:43 AM Robie Basak wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 01:51:46AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I think most developers would believe the current situation is > > appropriate. > > I disagree. > > > By default users have the same access to source and binary packages and > > for a free software distribution, that is the ethically correct approach. > Indeed, but you never replied to my original response to your concern. > By "same access", do you specifically require the mechanism to be to > keep users' local apt caches maintained with source entries? If so, why > is such a mechanism necessary to fit the spirit of Free Software? If the > user still has easy access to the source, why is this not sufficient? > > I'm happy to discuss what "easy access" might actually mean, but I see > no reason that it should require the waste of users' bandwidth and time.
Sorry. I didn't mean to ignore you. What's easy? For example, I think "install more packages to get the tools to get the source" (use pull-lp-source in ubuntu-dev-tools) doesn't qualify. There are tons of documentation all over the web and other places as well that assume apt-get source works. I think access using installed tools that are normally used for the job (wget is installed (I think) by default, but I don't think having to go to a web page to find a URL and then wget'ing the components of the source package is easy either. So those are a couple of examples of what I think is definitely not what we want. I'm open to discussion about alternate ways to preserve easy access to the source. Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
