source code

meandean · 2008-06-28 13:53:16

Hey guys!

Still trying to get familiar with arch....hit a spot.

Cant find source code...someone help me with my ignorance please.

Thanks in advance!

Last edited by meandean (2008-06-28 13:53:32)

sniffles · 2008-06-28 14:02:31

.. Source code for what, exactly? http://projects.archlinux.org/

meandean · 2008-06-28 14:15:41

In general, for any gpl covered binary that is included in the core ISO. Does arch offer source code ISOs by any chance?

In particular, I would like a peek at the arch installer....if it is GPL licensed.

Overall, I simply feel a lot more comfortable with a distro when the source code is easily and readily available without any hoops or confusion to go through. Makes me feel warm, fuzzy, and safe...

(yea I know I am weird)

Stefan Husmann · 2008-06-28 14:23:47

For each package exists a PKGBUILD an if you run makepkg on it, it will download the sources for you.

catwell · 2008-06-28 14:38:33

http://dev.archlinux.org/~aaron/sources/ for the binary packages, http://projects.archlinux.org/ for the Arch-based projects.

meandean · 2008-06-28 15:50:40

great info! Why not display the source more prominently so it would be easy to find....maybe listed on the download page or something.

toofishes · 2008-06-28 15:54:17

meandean wrote:

great info! Why not display the source more prominently so it would be easy to find....maybe listed on the download page or something.

Because it has never been something that a dev cared that much about. We aren't trying to be a from-source (ala Gentoo) distro, or a "FOSS must rule the world, down with closed-source" distro. ABS is really all 99.9% of people need to dive in.

meandean · 2008-06-28 16:19:54

Maybe not, but source code availability is the one thing that separates FOSS from proprietary and the importance of having the source code readily available should be important to everyone regardless if the actual source code itself is important to them.

Isn't just being able to easily access the source important regardless if you actually plan to do anything with it. Anything could be hidden in proprietary code (sony rootkit anyone) and FOSS without readily available and obvious source is almost as scary.....at least to me.

Last edited by meandean (2008-06-28 16:20:26)

Barrucadu · 2008-06-28 16:34:23

You can grab the source code for any package quite easily. Firstly, install abs if you don't already have it. Then, run "sudo abs", and if you browse through /var/abs you can find PKGBUILDs for all packages. To grab the source either look in the PKGBUILD for the URL, or run "makepkg".

sniffles · 2008-06-28 16:36:23

toofishes: Arch adhering to "FOSS must rule the world, down with closed-source" has little to do with it. The fact of the matter is the official Arch Linux repositories are full of FOSS.

In any case, my knowledge of GPL is highly limited, I like the dwtfywwi license myself, but doesn't the GPL state that since Arch is shipping various pieces of FOSS software in binay format (i.e. packages); Arch also has to provide associated sources?

Megamixman · 2008-06-28 17:06:43

Arch does provide it. It just doesn't make it available in as clearly marked a spot as others. This is because we have abs to provide a good abstraction over it. But anyone that wants it can easily get it. People here are not as nitpicky about the GPL and so it doesn't bother us.

catwell · 2008-06-28 17:42:19

The reason for the creation of this source repository was in fact GPL compliance. But being GPL compliant doesn't change the fact that some people, including me, think that the clause of the GPL that forces people who distribute binary packages to distribute source code too is a burden to distributions (especially distributions such as Arch which has ABS and relies on upstream repos anyway) and should disappear.

I think Arch devs don't encourage people to download the source from this repo but rather from upstream links as found in PKGBUILDs. I gave the link only because I don't want a whole Béranger-like story to start again.

sniffles · 2008-06-28 17:59:58

Well too bad. The author of the software was obviously OK with GPL and the terms when he licensed his program under it, so maybe he doesn't care it's inconvenient for people who include the said piece of software in their distributions. Maybe he -Wants- said people to be forced to provide the source.

Last edited by sniffles (2008-06-28 18:00:23)

meandean · 2008-06-28 18:20:35

Thats all cool....I was just wondering. As I said, it worries me when I cannot easily find the source code....even though I rarely even look at it beyond a occasional peak at a few things.

Personally I feel that the GPLv2/FSF is pretty specific about all this but I am less concerned with the actual details and specifics and more about it simply being easily and readily available - simply sets my mind at ease.

I mean, technically, if you provide arch on physical media via mail then you must also offer source code on physical media via mail - yet I could not find any such offering. And the source code must be provided with the binary or else you have to provide (written offer) a offer of source code. If you go for the (written) offer then you are stuck providing source code for a old product to the person that received as well as to every party they passed it on to - at cost only for three years. Three years....OUCH! Oh,and technically the information to download source is suppose to be on the same page/location as the information to download the binary.

But I am not trying to argue or demand anything be changed or done differently - just trying to find out info about arch to see if it fits my requirements....

Thanks again for any and all info!

(I was saving my 'OMG non-free is in the core repo' rant for later)

catwell · 2008-06-28 20:10:08

Non-free software in the repos is a choice, and does not conflict with the GPL afaik.

@sniffles: this is probably why everybody tries to comply with the GPL even if they don't agree with it. Although I have personally licensed code under the GPL a long time ago without exactly knowing what it implied, since it's not a very easy license to understand.

By the way, I'll probably have the opportunity to understand the GPL better when I'll be at Stallman's talks about it on July 4 and 5 at the LSM

Last edited by catwell (2008-06-28 20:11:55)

sniffles · 2008-06-28 21:35:21

OMG OMG ! You're going to see Stallman .. like .. LIVE ? PIX ! [ P.S. : I'm not that much of a fan of RMS, I appreciate everything he's done and all, but .. if I'd get to pick `computing personalities to meet live` he'd probably not be in the top 3 / top 5 / top 10 ]

Anyway, yes I understand that a lot of people release their software under GPL without actually understanding (I'm assuming there are quite a few who don't even bother ever reading -1- line of it). The fact of the matter is, distributors (be them Arch, Debian, Gentoo, Ubuntu, etc.) don't get to pick which parts of the license they honour. You get the full package, wether you like it or not and that's why "having us provide sources is inconvenient" doesn't quite cut it.

What if someone would take Pacman and ship a binary version with >their product< and say "Uh, yeah.. if you want the Pacman source just go ask those guys over at Arch Linux. It's inconvenient for us to provide the sources for Pacman so..".

I -Know- there was -some- distribution which actually got into trouble because of not providing sources. I just can't remember which. I also don't remember if the distribution was forced to shut down or simply someone donated some space. I remember reading about it some time ago (a year.. two years.. more ?) Anyone know what I'm talking about?

Last edited by sniffles (2008-06-28 21:36:36)

catwell · 2008-06-28 21:53:19

Sounds like Mepis but I think there were others. It was "because" of Béranger too.

EDIT: here's what they did to become compliant, not of good will as you can read...

Last edited by catwell (2008-06-28 21:55:16)

kumyco · 2008-06-28 22:16:06

(beranger?, is that you?)

this has already been discussed at length.
the effort towards full compliance is already in effect,
read the mailing list logs, and or use the search facilities on this bbs.

meandean · 2008-06-28 23:38:30

If you are talking to me, I did search....found nothing....asked about the source code. I wasn't looking for a discussion about how arch complies with the GPL or even what the gpl requires but rather for information about arch to satisfy my own requirements. My requirements for a distro (in regards to source code) is very close to what the GPLv2 requires but I am not as concerned about specific methods but rather that source code is easy to find, readily available, and so forth. No hunting upstream, no guessing about which version is which, no searching a forum/wiki/list to find some obscure link to some half-maintained server somewhere...etc....

And once again, if you wish to get technical, there is no "effort towards full compliance" or 'partial compliance' there is only compliance and non-compliance. It isn't hard to be compliant. Complying with the GPL should not be looked as as a extra, separate, or optional part of a distro but rather as a intrinsic and integral part of a distro that is every bit as important (if not more so) then any other aspect of a distro. IMO something the license requires is more important then something that is not required.....like a release, updates, forums....etc...

.:B:. · 2008-06-28 23:48:25

The wiki is pretty clear: use abs, and it fetches you all the source code you want.

Piece of cake, no need to get amped about it, is there?

kumyco · 2008-06-29 00:12:34

for the record, i wasn't talking to 'You'.
i was, and am speaking in general about this thread.
the bracketed comment can/should be ignored,
i was kidding and meant nothing by it, hence the brackets,
the only reason i even said it was because this thread smells of the beranger thread http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=48890
again, i appolgise if i offended you, maybe i didn't make it clear enough.
but the discussion here had shifted towards the gpl compliance, the discussion is what i responded to.

here's another thread from 2006 http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=24847
here's a bug report about it http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5355
here's a part of the effort to get there http://dev.archlinux.org/~aaron/sources/

compliance isn't going to come in a day or a month, it takes effort, which takes manpower
manpower which is in short supply,
maybe if someone helped we'd get there quicker http://www.archlinux.org/news/397/

this is in response to you
until we get there, if the method of obtaining such sources aren't good enough for you
then maybe frugalware is a better choice for you, their package manager is pacman
they are i686 optimised and provide x86_64 packages http://frugalware.org

....

Allan · 2008-06-29 01:52:29

Well, I think this thread has run its course....

The location of the sources was asked for, a link was given and a mention that they can be obtioned using abs/makepkg. Problem solved.

Closing before it deteriorates any further.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-06-28 13:53:16

source code

#2 2008-06-28 14:02:31

Re: source code

#3 2008-06-28 14:15:41

Re: source code

#4 2008-06-28 14:23:47

Re: source code

#5 2008-06-28 14:38:33

Re: source code

#6 2008-06-28 15:50:40

Re: source code

#7 2008-06-28 15:54:17

Re: source code

#8 2008-06-28 16:19:54

Re: source code

#9 2008-06-28 16:34:23

Re: source code

#10 2008-06-28 16:36:23

Re: source code

#11 2008-06-28 17:06:43

Re: source code

#12 2008-06-28 17:42:19

Re: source code

#13 2008-06-28 17:59:58

Re: source code

#14 2008-06-28 18:20:35

Re: source code

#15 2008-06-28 20:10:08

Re: source code

#16 2008-06-28 21:35:21

Re: source code

#17 2008-06-28 21:53:19

Re: source code

#18 2008-06-28 22:16:06

Re: source code

#19 2008-06-28 23:38:30

Re: source code

#20 2008-06-28 23:48:25

Re: source code

#21 2008-06-29 00:12:34

Re: source code

#22 2008-06-29 01:52:29

Re: source code

Board footer