Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] a cold wind bloweth
From: Wenchi Liao (wliao@midway.uchicago.edu)
Date: Tue Jun 08 1999 - 10:44:52 EDT
tkaczma@gryf.net wrote:
>
>On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Patrik Schindler wrote:
>
>> At 15:09 Uhr +0200 06.06.1999, Roland Schulz wrote:
>> >I for myself would rather see a normal, ordinary tgz
>>
>> I fully agree. And it's easier to extract by hand.
>
>I think both of you look at this in a very limited way. I think there
>should be both. There should be a tgz for those who don't mind untgzing
I'm not sure why this is even an issue. No matter how it is done (rpm,
deb, etc), the source will(?) always be available in a tar ball for
people to grab. So those who do not like rpm/deb/whatever conventions
can grab the source and compile it.
The ``real'' issue, I think, is the ``authenticity'' of the precompiled
binaries. If I built an package for 32bit solaris, I would include the
des stuff and tcpwrappers. If I made it publicly available via anon.
ftp, am I potentially liable for export violations? Can people trust me
to build a base install of the latest netatalk+asun, and not monkey
around with the afpd.c to send passwords to a hotmail account? If a
canonical precompiled binary is to be made available, having authentic
builds done by trusted people is more important.
WL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:16:48 EST