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

Re: Doesn't contain source for waf binary code

Sorry, this message was meant for an other threat.

On 07/02/12 17:33, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
Hello List:

what is the status of an orphaned package but that is waiting for an sponsor to be uploaded ?


On 03/02/12 20:33, Michael Biebl wrote:

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 [1].

A few observations/questions:

* We do accept tarball-in-tarball packages. What makes this specific
case different?

* Where exactly is the DFSG violation? The package does ship the source
code even if embedding it in the waf script doesn't make that obvious


* Would it be sufficient to document in README.source how a user can
unpack and modify the waf sources (basically what [2] does) and wouldn't
this fulfill the DFSG requirements?

* What about packages which ship both an autotools and waf based build
system and the Debian package uses the one based on autotools?


[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=645190
[2] http://wiki.debian.org/UnpackWaf

Reply to: