Re: Doesn't contain source for waf binary code
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 01:16:01PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Michael Biebl writes ("Doesn't contain source for waf binary code"):
> > as this issue affects quite a few packages, I'd like to bring this up
> > for wider discussion.
> > The issue basically is, that the waf build system uses a python script,
> > which embeds a bz2 tarball containing further python sources. Those are
> > unpacked to .waf-*/ when the waf script is executed. More details can be
> > found at .
> This means that we are distributing files derived from the waf.git
> source code, but not the waf.git source code itself. This is of
> course completely unacceptable in Debian. (It is not a violation of
> the copyright on waf itself as waf has a permissive non-copyleft
> licence; but will be a breach of the copyright on any GPL'd waf-using
> package, because the GPL's requirements extend to the build system.)
While the waf behavour does sound quite awful, is this really
any different than the current behaviour of the autotools? The
"configure" script is an unreadable mess generated by the
expansion of macros in the autotools packages; it too bears little
relation to the original macros.
(This one of the reasons I hope autoconf will use shell functions in
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.