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

Re: 25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files without the source

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Sami Liedes <sliedes@cc.hut.fi> wrote:

> I grepped the source tarballs in Lenny (testing) main section for the
> note "DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE - it is generated by Glade." which
> indicates the file is generated using the Glade UI editor. Then I
> checked if these packages have any *.glade* files, which would be the
> Glade projects, i.e. the "source code" (at least in the GPL sense,
> "preferred form of modification") for these. For those of these
> packages for which this is not a false alarm, I believe this would
> fail DFSG #2, and for those being licensed under GPL, it would
> probably make them non-distributable.

No.  .c files are still source code.  And even taking into account the
"DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE" comment, it doesn't clearly mean that the
author of the program necessarily has not edited it.

We might ask authors to include their .glade files, IF they still have
them (if they don't, then the .c files have already become the actual
source code).  But in any case it's not a violation of DFSG #2, since
.c files are still source code.  Bugs like these would be wishlist, at

The "preferred form of modification" for this case is quite relative.
Some people do prefer to edit .c files instead of .glade files,
because you don't need a special tool for that.

> The only questionable case I found
> by this sampling is dia, where the file is "generated by Glade and
> then hand-coded to make GNOME optional and add the underline for
> accelerated buttons".

And what's there to question, then?

This is exactly the case I was talking about.  Some people might use
glade to generate a .c as a starting point, and then continue editing
the file (or not, but just keep the .c file, once it's been
generated).  This is perfectly fine, and we do NOT need the .glade
files used.


Reply to: