John Dong jdong at
Wed Oct 26 06:32:08 CDT 2005

On 10/26/05, Sam Liddicott <sam at> wrote:
> First, I thank those responsible for their work in making backports
> available.
> I am one of the complainers that make this a sometimes thankless task.
> In the past I have asked about deb-src to backports and been informed
> that they are actually breezy sources. I think this is not always the
> case, as FreeNX is available for breezy only on breezy backports
> (thankyou), and no source.

Sources are not always derived from Breezy sources -- FreeNX is derived from <> or<>sources, whichever
matches up the version. In the future, we may actually be
deriving from Seveas's <> sources.

The reason we decided not to provide a source location is because for 99% of
the time, it's a waste of space and a duplication of effort. On our
(privately donated) servers, the last thing we'd like to do is waste space.

It's still legal by the GPL for me to provide sources by e-mail request,
though it isn't always the most convenient.

Any time that we actually modify the sources in any way, a patch will be
provided at

Please could I respectfully suggest that backports src-deb are always
> made available as a src-deb url in the same repository as the backports.
> I think it shows important respect for the GPL and Ubuntu users to
> permit users to rebuild the same deb's as they download.
> It also gives confidence that what has been downloaded is build in a
> standard way and not by forgettable manual freakery of the source tree
> that debian building permits.
> [Redhat rpm building does not permit such mid-build manual source-tree
> freakery and I sometimes wonder if this is why src.rpm's are generally
> more available than src-debs.]
> Sam
> --
> ubuntu-backports mailing list
> ubuntu-backports at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the ubuntu-backports mailing list