Re: Legal problems of unbuildable testing (Was: ... towards Debian 3.1)
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 03:04:55AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > What is a licence problem is that Debian needs to ship the source to
> > all binaries. For hundreds of packages that is not available in sid.
> > Every time a new source version is uploaded 10 archs will be left with
> > binaries without source until the buildd catch up, which can be as
> > much as 400 days in the extreme.
> We do ship the source for all these packages, it's simply not listed in
> the the Sources.gz file. We've been doing this ever since we switched
> to the pool/ structure almost three years ago. As an example, the perl
> 5.8.2-1 source is only being kept around in the pool because perl on
> mipsel is out of date. galeon 220.127.116.1130419-1 seems to be in a similar
Oh, thats news to me. That means any deb without source is an actual
bug that someone should care about and not just time skews. I guess I
have to start a little shell script to hunt for those then.
But it could still be interpreted as a GPL violation. Source has to be
provided the same way binaries are. So for "apt-get install foo"
"apt-get source foo" should allways work. But lets not take such a
fanatic hardline view on that.