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

Ok to use upstream doumentation as-is (i.e. not regenerate)?

Hi fellow hackers,

I have noticed several times package changes like the following (from 
cairomm entering testing today):

  * debian/control:
    - Drop build dependencies on doxygen and graphviz, since upstream 
      now ships the generated documentation

Feels wrong to me to redistribute when e.g. html files clearly are not 
the preferred form of editing for upstream.

I also avoid redistributing PDF files provided by upstream - and in some 
cases even strip it from redistributed source, as it is a binary thingy 
which potentially may contain non-free code.

On the other hand, I often include graphics files even if those also are 
binary and may potentially contain non-free code (although less likely).

Seems inconsistent to me.

Do we have some consensus on what is ok to redistribute as-is and what 

Or can some of you enlighten me with your personal reasoning for your 
own packaging style?


 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: