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

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,

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: