[Dev] Question about libre packaging requirements (apache-ant binaries)

Michał Masłowski mtjm at mtjm.eu
Wed Feb 8 14:27:33 GMT 2012

> From my understanding, we don't allow this. (And maybe neither does
> Arch?)

We allow this in case of TeXLive.  I believe any useful Java package is
easier to build from source than TeXLive's arch-independent files.

> So:
>  1. Is this allowed in Arch, should we report it upstream?

It's allowed, https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Java_Package_Guidelines.

>  2. If it is allowed in Arch, is it worth us fixing it, or do we just
>     let it slide?

We must provide a source.  How do we know that it's the source, unless
we build it?

(I believe this is also the reason for changing all PKGBUILDs fetching
sources in build(), e.g. from unspecified vcs commits.)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/attachments/20120208/7242bd65/attachment.sig>

More information about the Dev mailing list