Should we start building it from source (later on)?

In D8623#180112, @emaste wrote:

Should we start building it from source (later on)?

Sadly, no, for two reasons:

1. The open source release of p4 lags behind the binary release. Basically, perforce's developers work on the binary release, and the community relations team copies that code into the open source repository on their own schedule. And the lag can be many months.
2. Perforce has no stable distfiles. It's like the "download zip" button from Github. Whenever the repository changes, the download changes. This causes havoc with Ports, and it also makes me skeptical of the code's stability. Technically, the binary release doesn't have stable distfiles either, but at least it doesn't change continuously.

I've tried explaining to Perforce why their release practices suck, but they don't seem to understand.

Got it.

Last time I checked (and it was like 2 months ago) redistribution was strictly forbidden, this would be a real, real, change on their side.

In D8623#180150, @mat wrote:

Last time I checked (and it was like 2 months ago) redistribution was strictly forbidden, this would be a real, real, change on their side.

Catherine Louis of Perforce's support department assures me that the BSD license present in swarm.workshop.perforce.com also applies to the binaries distributed from ftp.perforce.com. Note however that of the things we package, only p4, p4api, and rubygem-p4ruby are on swarm.workshop.perforce.com. p4d, p4p, etc will remain restricted.

@mat are you satisfied by my explanation? If so, would you please accept the review? I haven't heard anything from @gordon .