A fictional source package 'gnuhell' is the package of GNU Hell from ftp.gnu.org. Like every other FSF-originated software, it follows their rules which means a fairly standard build structure and GFDL info documentation. The package as it currently stands has needed no modification and it constists of the pristine upstream source tar file renamed to gnuhell-1.5_orig.tar.gz, with the debian/ directory added by the .diff.gz and nothing else changed. The package has already undergone Xuification which means two binary packages are created; 'gnuhell' which contains the binary and support files (all GPL) and 'gnuhell-doc' which contains the info documentation (GFDL). Assuming the maintainer believes the GFDL is sufficiently non-free to warrant taking pre-emptive action and removing it, what's the right thing to do? Can he simply change the section of gnuhell-doc (with appropriate overrides changes) to non-free/doc? This would mean that the GFDL documentation is still in the pristine original tar file, but distributed in binary form in the correct package. Or does he have to remove the GFDL-infected documentation from the tar file, thereby creating a Debian-native package and remove all trace and mention of the 'gnuhell-doc' package from it -- and then create a *new* source package for 'gnuhell-doc' which only contains the info file and is distributed as non-free. The first seems "nicer", the second creates a total mess. Which is "correct"? Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part