Re: wanting to package wpoison
In message <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.33.0209091746040.21401-100000@router.windsormachine.com>
, you wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> Anyway, for whatever it's worth, I think your ``source as well as
>> compiled'' condition is your DFSG is downright silly.
>>
>> I mean what's the practical difference between (say) distributing a
>> compiled binary of program `X' as opposed to (say) distributing a
>> shar file called X which, when invoked, stashes the source code for
>> (say) X.c in a temp file, invokes the C compiler on it, and then
>> copies the resulting binary back over the original executable shar
>> file `X'?
>
>Please provide your wpoison binaries for all 11 architectures that Debian
>supports.
>
>Additionally, everytime there is a security update, please compile all 11
>architectures.
>
>Additionally, everytime there is a library change, a compiler change, or
>the moon changes phase, please provide all 11 architectures.
>
>I have ported Debian to my toaster. Please find yourself a toaster, of
>the same make and model as mine, and compile my copy of wpoison for it.
Now I'm confused.
Were you attempting to make a case in favor of _binary_ distribution
of add-on packages?
If so, you just did the exact opposite.
I think you just made the case for why distribution of sources is better.
(And in case it wasn't clear, that what the Wpoison copyright conditions
called for anyway.)
>Debian is not Microsoft.
Good. Neither am I.
Reply to: