siretart at gmail.com
Sun Nov 27 08:28:22 CST 2005
On 11/27/05, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:08:04 +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote:
> > So do you think it would be a good idea to put Putty.exe into the wine
> > package, because it's opensource?
> Sure, I don't see any reason why something like Putty.exe couldn't be put
> into Ubuntu if it worked with Wine (IIRC it does), or even included with
> Wine itself if upstream had a use for it. I don't see why it'd be useful
> on Linux but you never know.
Because we must be able to support it. In order to be able to support
a software package, we must be able to rebuild it from source. A
'putty.exe' would have to be compiled under windows, which we cannot
> > Do you think it's wise, to package windows firefox together with wine, because
> > it's opensource?
> That may become a technical necessity in future, so watch your
> examples closely.
I really don't think you want to redistribute unmaintainable binaries
from foreign operating systems. Well, in fact, we (as in
> > Thinking about userland windows applications/libraries in a wine package, I,
> > as packager would remove them. They don't belong to the original source
> > package named wine.
> You are *AGAIN* stating you would interfere with upstream technical
> decisions for no good reason other than "I don't like it". That is
> unacceptable. It's not your place, nor the distributions, to override
> upstream decisions in that way.
He was perhaps a bit harsh, but please understand our point: We
require all software we ship in main and universe to be compilable
from source. (Okay, there are very few exceptions in multiverse, but
they are not free software).
More information about the ubuntu-devel