Fwd: devref and policy should agree on where to document tarball repacking
Sorry, my answer went to "submit" instead of the right bug.
Copy sent again to d-devel to allow answers to go to the bug report.
Début du message réexpédié :
Réenvoyé-De : email@example.com
De : Thibaut Paumard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date : 18 décembre 2009 14:17:09 HNEC
À : Debian Debian Developers <email@example.com>, Debian
Bug Debian BTS submit <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Objet : Rép : devref and policy should agree on where to document
Le 17 déc. 09 à 17:28, Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 04:45:33PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Charles Plessy <email@example.com> writes:
while checking the section 18.104.22.168 of the Developers reference
(“Repackaged upstream source”) in the context on another thread
([🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org">http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[🔎] email@example.com
I found the following :
A repackaged .orig.tar.gz
1. should be documented in the resulting source package.
information on how the repackaged source was obtained, and on
this can be reproduced should be provided in debian/copyright.
is also a good idea to provide a get-orig-source target in your
debian/rules file that repeats the process, as described in the
Policy Manual, Main building script: debian/rules.
I have a slight, but not overwhelming, preference for having this in
README.source rather than in debian/copyright;
I believe this belongs in copyright. This is based on two
1) debian/copyright is (should be) the central repository for legal
information for the source package as well as for all the binary
packages it builds;
2) most free licenses require to clearly specify modifications to
licensed work. Deleting files is to be considered a modification of
the source package, which _is_ the licensed work.
By the same token, I am starting to realise that we should also
certainly specify in debian/copyright that some files have been
patched. If using a patch system, the files are not modified in the
source package, but still the binary packages are built with or even
ship modified files. Also the details of the modifications belong
elsewhere, I think debian/copyright should clearly state that our
package is derived work, not the original, unmodified work.
What is not clear to me is whether we need to list all the files
that are modified (or removed), or whether a generic "this work may
have been modified prior to inclusion in Debian" is sufficient (in
Best regards, Thibaut.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org