Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#26179 - Arch does not provide source tarballs

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Ian (zerathidune) - Saturday, 01 October 2011, 18:58 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Saturday, 01 October 2011, 22:53 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Architecture All
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 1
Private No

Details

I believe this has been brought up on the forums before, but I didn't see a bugreport.

For a long time, Arch has not provided source tarballs for the packages it distrubutes.

(I think at one time there was an obscure location where you could get them. I've not been able to find it.)

I stumbled on this again trying to get the kernel sources - kernel.org has been down since the end of august (I can get the sources from github, but still.)

For the majorty of packages (many of which are under the GPL), the license *requires* anyone distributing binaries to distribute source code as well. (partially because of situations like this.)

The practice of not distributing sources also causes arch's mirrors to be in violation of the GPL.

There should ideally be a link on the package page to download the upstream source tarballs form arch mirrors.

As an addendum, I respect that this would take a very large amount of space. Still, it's not optional. (I think the sheer amount of code in some of these packages is absurd - even GNU echo is over 200 sloc, but all the same I need some of them.)

(I tagged this as Packages: Core, but it applies to many packages in other repositories as well.)
This task depends upon

Closed by  Allan McRae (Allan)
Saturday, 01 October 2011, 22:53 GMT
Reason for closing:  Not a bug
Additional comments about closing:  sources are provided
Comment by Ian (zerathidune) - Saturday, 01 October 2011, 19:08 GMT
The relevant section of GPL2 (note that in all cases where distribution occurs, so must distribution of the *complete* source code):

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.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
Comment by Ionut Biru (wonder) - Saturday, 01 October 2011, 19:08 GMT
we do provide sources but not on all mirrors.

ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/sources/
Comment by Ian (zerathidune) - Saturday, 01 October 2011, 19:19 GMT
Good to know! thanks for the quick response.

I do think this should be easier to find. (I asked on irc, no one there knew about this.) If it's this difficult to find I don't know that it really qualifies as equivalent access - and I don't see much of a reason not to put a link on the package page.

Also if a mirror is providing binaries but not sources, this seems like it would still be an issue for them. Again, I'm sensitive to the space issue, but I think it's a good thing to think about.

I had a suspicion it was something like this, but again, had a very hard time finding it.

Thanks again.

Loading...