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

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 : debian-devel@lists.debian.org
De : Thibaut Paumard <mlotpot.news@free.fr>
Date : 18 décembre 2009 14:17:09 HNEC
À : Debian Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, Debian Bug Debian BTS submit <submit@bugs.debian.org> Objet : Rép : devref and policy should agree on where to document tarball repacking

Le 17 déc. 09 à 17:28, Steve Langasek a écrit :

Package: developers-reference
Version: 3.4.3

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 04:45:33PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:

while checking the section of the Developers reference
(“Repackaged upstream source”) in the context on another thread on this
([🔎] d921045c2e3ae5ecfba088e9d82eb2c6@drazzib.com">http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[🔎] d921045c2e3ae5ecfba088e9d82eb2c6@drazzib.com ),
I found the following :

A repackaged .orig.tar.gz

1. should be documented in the resulting source package. Detailed information on how the repackaged source was obtained, and on how this can be reproduced should be provided in debian/copyright. It
   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 considerations:

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 debian/copyright).

Best regards, Thibaut.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: