Re: Do the HPPA "binary-only" NMUs violate the GPL?
LaMont Jones <lamont@hp.com> writes:
> > > clif (0.93-1.0.1) unstable; urgency=low
> > > * va_arg fixes for gcc 2.96 and later. See #103683
> > This is certainly in poor taste. If the HPPA people can't wait for the
> > maintainer to turn around a new package, they should do a source NMU - it's
> > scarcely much more work than a binary-only upload. Like any other, this rule
> > is made to be broken, but one shouldn't make a habit of it.
>
> As the one doing a fair percentage of these uploads, here is the
> logic I was given by some porters (who have done other
> architectures) when they told me to do binary NMU's with a patch in
> the BTS.
[...]
> thoughts?
As I already said on debian-hppa; _don't do this_. I don't know who
told you to do bin-only NMUs with source changes but they need a damn
good kicking. Even if you don't see the inherent evilness of
source-changing binary-only NMUs, you really ought to understand that
the vast majority of HPPA fixes are not specific to HPPA, by doing a
binary-only NMU you're denying the fix to other architectures in a
similar position (e.g. ia64, s390, sh). Just do sourceful NMUs,
_please_.
--
James - who is obviously going to have to come up with the nasty hack
mentioned on debian-hppa to make sourceful bin-only NMUs as
hard as possible :-(
Reply to: