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

Re: Non-recompilable binaries in source and binary packages (Adobe Flash strikes again)

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Tanguy Ortolo]
> > 2. Policy §2.2.1 is about packages. A source package containing some
> > non-compilable-with-software-in-main code, but which rules do not make
> > use of that code, neither by compiling it, nor by copying it to the
> > binary package (that is, rules that /strip/ that code) needs, no package
> > outside of main for compilation or execution.
> I agreed with Steve at the time, that files not shipped in a .deb
> need not be documented in /usr/share/doc/foo/copyright shipped in
> the .deb; and I agree with you now, that files not shipped in a .deb
> need not be subject to our rule about self-hosted building. Of
> course they are still subject to the DFSG.

My understanding is that for those (programmatic?) works, source code
must be provided, and we certainly shouldn't be shipping them in the
binary part of the distribution if we cannot build them from that

Assuming the source is present, we should just blow them away in the
clean rule to be sure that they aren't shipped by accident. If the
source isn't provided, we have to either provide it, or not ship it in
the source package.

Personally, I view that including things that don't get shipped or
used in an upstream source package is a minor bug that should be fixed
upstream. [With possible increase in severity if the useless bits are

Don Armstrong

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads.
One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness.
The other, to total extinction.
Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
 -- Woody Allen

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: