Re: Non-recompilable binaries in source and binary packages (Adobe Flash strikes again)
>> I don't think anyone disagrees with this, including the ftp-masters. The
>> question is whether the source package also needs a copyright file of its
>> own.
> As we are distributing these files, it seems reasonable to document their
> licence. But the Policy is not clear about that requirement.
We distribute source and binary. So the copyright file has to document
the contents of them all. Most commonly packages have exactly 1 of those
files, copied everywhere. Then it has to document all, and the file
ending up in binary packages will obviously document the source tarball
too.
Now, you can go and split the file, and have one per binary package
seperated, as well as one documenting all of it once for the source.
Besides that being a fair bit of useless extra work, for both you and
ftpmaster, it seems pretty pointless to do, as the only thing that
happens with just one file for all is "slightly more text in the file as
the binary may need".
> The problematic binary being only in the source package, I do not think
> it is relevant to oppose that “I cannot build the original tarball from
> source using free tools”, because the original tarball is not meant to
> be built from source, as it is the source.
> As I saw no opponent to such a solution, then I shall simply keep the
> binary Flash file and its source code on the original tarball, and strip
> them at build time. Let me see what happens next.
As you do mention its license and stuff anyways (source distributing
it), also state you remove that on build time. One little sentence
keeping away possible confusion.
--
bye, Joerg
> 20. What would you do if you wanted to retire from the project?
Remove the passphrase from the (secret) gpg key and post it to
debian-devel. The keyring maintainers will lock the account ASAP.
Reply to: