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

Re: O: Gnus -- A versatile News and mailing list reader for Emacsen.

> Package gnus, version x.y-z.dfsg.
> That way its clearly marked that gnus is modified to be dfsg free,
> and you dont change any source/package name. A lot of other packages
> in Debian already go this way, I dont see why gnus can't do it.

        In Debian, source package components have precise meaning.
 The package name is Gnus, and the version you are referring to is the
 "upstream" version.   In case you are not aware, that implies that
 this is a source package for an upstream release versioned
 x.y-z.dfsg -- which in turn implies that the upstream author has
 created a DFSG free version, perhaps unreleased, for Debian.

        I think pretending with a fake upstream version that this is
 the same Gnus upstream packages is misleading at best, and deceptive
 at worst.

        The reason binary package is not changed is that the binary
 package is indeed unchanged -- whether or not the sources had dfsg
 docs or not, the Gnus binary package would be the same.  It is
 perfectly legitimate to split up p[acakegs into foo and foo-doc, in
 case the user only wants to install docs on one of the 8 machines she
 may have in her office.

        Also, other people doing what I consider unethical is not
 really much of a motivating factor for me to follow the same
 unethical practice.  I might not be haranguing other folks, since
 there ethos may well differ from mine, but I am not alone in
 considering fake "upstream" versions to imply that there is a dfsgf
 free upstream version of the package as deceptive.

        Ad why is this being rejected, you may ask? On IRC, the ftp
 master agreed that the only reason is that a one line edit is
 required in the override file; end sers are not impacted, since gnus
 and gnus-doc are available to them, and the only ones who work with
 sources with apt-get source gnus would be, since they see the
 different dir thepackage unpacks into. Not a major impact there

        And it is not as if there is no precedence for foo-dfsg
 packages -- mysql-dfsg, polgen-dfsg, make-dfsg all come to mind.  So,
 an inconsistent policy, all to avoid a single line edit in overrides
 (or so it has been communicated to me).

Being popular is important.  Otherwise people might not like you.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: