[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#497471: sarge images have syslinux binaries without source

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:28:04AM +0000, Chris Knadle wrote:
>For what it's worth, syslinux-2.04 source is available here:
>   https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/boot/syslinux/2.xx/
>This is a list files shown for version 2.04:
>   syslinux-2.04.lsm               20-Oct-2011 19:13  3.0K
>   syslinux-2.04.lsm.sign          20-Oct-2011 19:13  836
>   syslinux-2.04.tar.bz2           20-Oct-2011 19:08  309K
>   syslinux-2.04.tar.gz            20-Oct-2011 19:08  379K
>   syslinux-2.04.tar.sign          20-Oct-2011 19:08  836
>   syslinux-2.04.tar.xz            20-Oct-2011 19:08  257K
>   syslinux-2.04.zip               20-Oct-2011 19:13  462K
>   syslinux-2.04.zip.sign          20-Oct-2011 19:13  836
>Hopefully there's a way of verifying that this is the correct source for
>what was shipped with the Sarge images.
>GPL license compliance requires that users be able to get the source for the
>binary upon request -- so I believe what's required to handle this bug is
>verification and documentation.  I'd like to think that can be done with
>some kind of errata file placed /next to/ the Sarge images in the archive
>rather than having to rebuild the Sarge images themselves.

ACK, thanks for the suggestion. I could also check the files that were
in use and compare to the stuff on snapshot.d.o for the dates in
question.  It would be very hard to rebuild the sarge images now after
such a long time, and I've not got much confidence we could make them

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"Since phone messaging became popular, the young generation has lost the
 ability to read or write anything that is longer than one hundred and sixty
 characters."  -- Ignatios Souvatzis

Reply to: