On Thursday, 6 February 2020 10:22:24 AM AEDT Russ Allbery wrote:
> I can't speak for Bernd, but I haven't seen any evidence in this thread
> that the built binary is not DFSG-compliant.
So now you are going to nitpick on my language with all your eloquence? :(
The first problem is that packaged gitlab-runner (where all the issues are
addressed) is not used. I consider it to be a problem on its own.
Second, it that binary build, the way it is compiled upstream, would never be
accepted by ftp-masters due to lack of some sources in Debian "main".
That's what I called problem with DFSG compliance.
On top of that there are minor things like sloppy upstream vendoring of many
packaged components. That is over 90 libraries that may or may not contain
some binary blobs, pre-generated files, or files licensed under non-DFSG
compliant terms. Do you really want me to dig there to find you "proof" or
did I say enough to demonstrate the problem?
User of upstream build (even self-compiled) can not be sure about DFSG
compliance due to extensive vendoring - a something that took months to
address in the package that was actually accepted into Debian.
--
Cheers,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
practice, there is.
-- Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.