[aur-general] When does a package need -svn?
Hi there, the developer of ardour changed the download page (1) in a way that doesn't allow downloads without going through a dialogue where he asks for donation. Donation is not mandatory but there's no direct link to the source tarball available anymore. All ardour packages, including the one I maintain (2), are broken since this change. The in my opinion best way to overcome this issue is to determine the svn revision of the release, check it out and build that instead. Although it technically using svn it wouldn't follow a branch. Would it ok to just leave the package name as is? The other method I can think of that wouldn't need svn would be to upload the tarball elsewhere, something I rather not do. (1) http://www.ardour.org/download (2) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22752 Best regards, Philipp
Uploading the tarball elsewhere is not an option at all since it goes against the author's intentions. SVN will have to do for now; script in the checkout as per normal under build() and not as in an svn buildscript.
Ray Rashif wrote:
Uploading the tarball elsewhere is not an option at all since it goes against the author's intentions. SVN will have to do for now; script in the checkout as per normal under build() and not as in an svn buildscript.
Actually, it is distributed under the GPL, so that is techniqually fine... In fact, to distribute binaries, you have have to host the source yourself. Allan
Actually, it is distributed under the GPL, so that is techniqually fine... Yes, but that is why I mentioned "author's intentions".
Ray Rashif wrote:
Actually, it is distributed under the GPL, so that is techniqually fine...
Yes, but that is why I mentioned "author's intentions".
But the author also intends you to provide the source when you distribute binaries. That is why they used the GPL license. So I would pick that intention over the contradictory one... Allan
Legal licence holds some more weight over their strange habits, I think. -AT On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Ray Rashif wrote:
Actually, it is distributed under the GPL, so that is techniqually fine...
Yes, but that is why I mentioned "author's intentions".
But the author also intends you to provide the source when you distribute binaries. That is why they used the GPL license. So I would pick that intention over the contradictory one...
Allan
But the author also intends you to provide the source when you distribute binaries.
So in that case we can host the sources ourselves? I don't know if it'll be right to do so..especially if people start downloading from there instead. Legally, the GPL allows and encourages that. Also, the author cannot take action but he _can_ blacklist people on his own papers because in that particular situation we are not helping him. That's what I'm afraid of.
Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
But the author also intends you to provide the source when you distribute binaries.
So in that case we can host the sources ourselves? I don't know if it'll be right to do so..especially if people start downloading from there instead. Legally, the GPL allows and encourages that. Also, the author cannot take action but he _can_ blacklist people on his own papers because in that particular situation we are not helping him. That's what I'm afraid of.
Have you tried contacting the author? If you explained the packaging system to him and offered to include a post-installation message of his choice (e.g. "message from the author: I work hard on this. If you find it useful, please consider making a donation blah blah blah...") then perhaps he would agree to some arrangement (e.g. he consents to your hosting the sources). I don't know how likely that is but I think it's worth asking. Even if the GPL fully supports hosting the files and distributing them as you wish, it's bad style to completely disregard the author's wishes. Try to work something out with him (her?) first. If all else fails, I can put you in touch with my very persuasive associates: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=542194#p542194 /Xyne
Yeah I was planning on that, but it doesn't affect me as much yet since I already have the 2.8 source downloaded before Paul Davis decided on this new distribution method. However, it will keep the package in [extra] from being updated. And that made my day too..I should browse the forums on a regular basis again =/
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:57:50 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah I was planning on that, but it doesn't affect me as much yet since I already have the 2.8 source downloaded before Paul Davis decided on this new distribution method. However, it will keep the package in [extra] from being updated.
And that made my day too..I should browse the forums on a regular basis again =/
It's still possible to download the source tarball without donation, but not automatically (you might need this next week for 2.8.1). I doubt he'll provide us with a direct link to the source tarball because this would ruin his system (eg. forcing people to go through his donation dialogue). I'll ask him if I should add some post install message to my package. In the meanwhile my package (hopefully) works by checking out the svn repository by tag. Best regards, Philipp
Some other options: - He could have a "hidden" folder somewhere with the sources. He then could just not tell people about that. - You could do some serious hacks and have a script click through the download dialog and get the source as a human would. Bad for PKGBUILDS. The SVN route is pretty good, I think. -AT On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 4:07 AM, <hollunder@gmx.at> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:57:50 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah I was planning on that, but it doesn't affect me as much yet since I already have the 2.8 source downloaded before Paul Davis decided on this new distribution method. However, it will keep the package in [extra] from being updated.
And that made my day too..I should browse the forums on a regular basis again =/
It's still possible to download the source tarball without donation, but not automatically (you might need this next week for 2.8.1). I doubt he'll provide us with a direct link to the source tarball because this would ruin his system (eg. forcing people to go through his donation dialogue).
I'll ask him if I should add some post install message to my package.
In the meanwhile my package (hopefully) works by checking out the svn repository by tag.
Best regards, Philipp
Andrei Thorp <garoth@gmail.com> wrote:
Some other options: - He could have a "hidden" folder somewhere with the sources. He then could just not tell people about that. - You could do some serious hacks and have a script click through the download dialog and get the source as a human would. Bad for PKGBUILDS.
The SVN route is pretty good, I think.
-AT
I initially thought about the "secret" direct link too but that really would ruin his nag system as Philipp mentioned because the direct link would eventually become common knowledge. I agree that the SVN checkout is probably the best compromise in absence of a direct link to the tarball. /Xyne
Idk, maybe. People just browsing his site to get the source probably wouldn't know about it, most packagers probably would. Hard to say. On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Andrei Thorp <garoth@gmail.com> wrote:
Some other options: - He could have a "hidden" folder somewhere with the sources. He then could just not tell people about that. - You could do some serious hacks and have a script click through the download dialog and get the source as a human would. Bad for PKGBUILDS.
The SVN route is pretty good, I think.
-AT
I initially thought about the "secret" direct link too but that really would ruin his nag system as Philipp mentioned because the direct link would eventually become common knowledge.
I agree that the SVN checkout is probably the best compromise in absence of a direct link to the tarball.
/Xyne
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Even if the GPL fully supports hosting the files and distributing them as you wish, it's bad style to completely disregard the author's wishes. Try to work something out with him (her?) first.
I thought the GPL asked you / forced you to host the files, which is quite different from just supporting it. Isn't this what the following bug was about? http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5355
I thought the GPL asked you / forced you to host the files, which is quite different from just supporting it.
Isn't this what the following bug was about? http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5355
From the GPLv2
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) My interpretation of b is that you don't actually have to host the files but you must be able to supply the sources upon request. As the PKGBUILD is readily available and is able to retrieve the source files, that condition is met. Hosting all the source code for every package would be inhibitive.
Le Sun, 26 Apr 2009 22:18:33 +0200, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> a écrit :
My interpretation of b is that you don't actually have to host the files but you must be able to supply the sources upon request. As the PKGBUILD is readily available and is able to retrieve the source files, that condition is met.
It is not. If you want to use b), you have to: - state it explicitely ; - keep a copy of the sources of every version you distribute in binary form for 3 years in case it is no longer available at its original location. I don't think it is a good thing, but that's what the GPL says. That's one of the reasons why I avoid its use when I can... -- catwell
It is not. If you want to use b), you have to: - state it explicitely ; - keep a copy of the sources of every version you distribute in binary form for 3 years in case it is no longer available at its original location.
I don't think it is a good thing, but that's what the GPL says. That's one of the reasons why I avoid its use when I can...
You're right. I just finished reading the discussion on the bug tracker about GPL compliance which made me realize the obligations that that clause imposes. *heads off to review alternative software licenses*
This reminds me of the AL GPL obligatory-source-hosting-nagging a while back =p
hollunder@gmx.at a écrit :
The in my opinion best way to overcome this issue is to determine the svn revision of the release, check it out and build that instead.
I think it would be easier (and cleaner) to checkout using a tag name instead of a revision number since all releases seem to be tagged on the svn repository. Something like: svn co http://subversion.ardour.org/svn/ardour2/tags/2.8 Not tested though :) -- Regards, Schnouki
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:32:25 +0200 Thomas Jost <thomas.jost@gmail.com> wrote:
hollunder@gmx.at a écrit :
The in my opinion best way to overcome this issue is to determine the svn revision of the release, check it out and build that instead.
I think it would be easier (and cleaner) to checkout using a tag name instead of a revision number since all releases seem to be tagged on the svn repository. Something like: svn co http://subversion.ardour.org/svn/ardour2/tags/2.8
Not tested though :)
-- Regards, Schnouki
Thanks, I'll do that when a tag is available. Regards, Philipp
participants (8)
-
Allan McRae
-
Andrei Thorp
-
hollunder＠gmx.at
-
Pierre Chapuis
-
Ray Rashif
-
Thomas Jost
-
Xavier
-
Xyne