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

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

On 24 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link spake thusly:

> * Bernhard R. Link <brlink@debian.org> [060424 18:14]:
>> * Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> [060424 17:39]:
>>>> 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.
> I must excuse for this mail. I really thought you were just removing
> stuff. I would not have imagine that it is a full fork, with changed
> build system and other changes to the original source directory.
> That is of course nothing to name it the same.

        Well, I think it is important for people to be able to build
 make/gnus which is the same as supplied by upstream, without  Debian
 specific patches. If I change the orig file in a manner which breaks
 the build system, I think it is imperative for me to fix it so people
 can still compile the non-debian-patched versions of the software.

        I assume that the users, and the rest of the free software
 community, are full partners, and could help in improving the
 software, and if they talk to upstream, itwould be good to be able to
 distinguish if the bug occurs in unpatched upstream make, or just in
 the debian patched one.

        I think anyone who ships a changed .orig file which no longer
 builds (if the unchanged .orig file did build) is shipping a
 suboptimal, and even buggy, source package. FTBS used to apply to
 things not building on the user machine, not just buildd's.

        This is a quality of implementation issue.

> But as said on irc, I find it highly confusing to name a fork -dfsg
> in the context of Debian, where people got used to get a -dfsg
> suffix (though not in the context of source names but versions), if
> it is still the upstream stuff with only things removed.

        I was gonna call it -free and -non-free, but was dissuaded
 from doing so by people on IRC, who suggested -dfsg and -non-dfsg.

> I do not understand why you do a full fork, but I agree it should be
> named differntly then.

        I hope I have explained well enough above.

People think love is an emotion.  Love is good sense. Ken Kesey
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: