On 10/25/2011 08:14 AM, me@tdie... wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> On 10/24/2011 10:53 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>>>> Please, put at least some SRPMS here :) Most interesting are net-base:
>>>>> kernel, iptables, tc, ifconfig, ppp, rp-pppoe and all such - people are
>>>>> updating their patches for 6.1 out there (I'm among them) and it may be
>>>>> nice to have sources to know what awaits us.
>>> I'm waiting for kernel-2.6.32-131.17.1.el6.src.rpm .
>> We have enough ( but barely enough ) space on the mirrors for
>> 6.0/cr/SRPMS; however that would then mean that we no longer have enough
>> space to get 6.1 on there.
>> So just to keep with the theme of things, what is the feeling if I were :
>> - to drop the CR/SRPMS into vault.c.o
>> - add a .repo stanza into the centos-release-cr rpm with a [sources]
>> pointing to the right place
> I think that is a good idea. It should not matter to anyone where the srpms are
> physically located as long as they are accessible.
> In addition, given that the sprms used to build most of the distro are
> unmodified from the upstream versions, do you even need to distribute
> them? Since I am not a lawyer I do not know the answer but it would seem
> to me that if you made the srpms you modify available that would be good
You have to provide your own copies and that is clearly called out in
the GPL. The reason is that SOMEONE ELSE might go out of business, etc.
Also, the "someone else" only needs to provide the Source to their
"customers/users" ... so in the case of Red Hat, they could, for
example, put those SRPMS as only available via an RHN account. That
would leave CentOS users in a bad place.
This is the reason that you are responsible to provide your own source
code ... which we will. Now, if 2 companies have a relationship ...
like Fedora and Red Hat, then one could provide the sources for both, etc.
> I am sure some lawyer wannabee will complain about this. People always seem to
> find something to whine about but if you could do that it would save a bunch
> of disk space. Which is a good thing IMO.
> Just my $.02