Re: Moving GFDL documentation to non-free
On 24 Mar 2006, Jérôme Marant told this:
> The Emacs documentation is going to be moved to non-free since
> it is GFDLed with invariant sections.
> I'd like know how packagers who have the same problem usually
> handle this, especially the non-free package.
> The simplest way I can see is to take the pristine tarball and
> rename to foo-non-free of foo-non-dfsg, and to just install what was
> removed from the modified tarball in main. However, the Emacs
> tarball is 18 megs big so I'm not sure ftp masters would allow it in
> the archive.
> Is the common trend doing this, or do packagers just create custom
> tarballs by leaving only what's necessary plus a minimal custom
> build infrastructure?
I was told unequivocally that just shipping the whole tarball
for make, which is 1.5MB large, would not be acceptable. I ended up
having to create two new .orig.tar.gz files, with minimal overlap in
contents, (remove docs from one, and the sources from the other, and
leave some build infrastructure in both) and uploading that.
I also called these source packages make-dfsg and
make-doc-non-dfsg, but I think others have let the package in main be
still called foo (despite removing non-free bits from it), and just
append .dfsg to the upstream version number. I was not comfortable
with that, but your mileage may vary.
Where does it go when you flush?
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C