On 2018-02-16 20:41, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 08:21:19PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > > But it's probably too much work, preparing infrastructure etc. > > Why? Depends how it would be done. Nixos style would probably very difficult for Debian. Packages with version number in their name would be no packaging problem at all, but we would have to make clear, that security support is not likely. > > Anyway, relaxing requirements on source code availability, > > building from sources with tools within Debian, free license, > > etc. is not an option for me. Not only in the context of Debian. > > I've been doing Debian for so long now but I still cannot grasp the way > discussions are going. How on earth did we get from the technical problem of > how to package large application stacks that come with their own copies of > certain "libraries" to packaging software that is neither free nor open source? > I didn't notice anyone suggesting we should do the latter. Is was a relevant part of the problem mentioned in Raphaels bug report: Minified JS libraries without source code. this was one of the starting points of this discussion. (#890598) The bug report mentions two orthogonal problems: - libraries without source code or no license information - libraries which are needed in specific versions I add a third one: - libraries that are not packaged, because there are too many Cheers
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature