Re: [Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>] Do the HPPA "binary-only" NMUs violate the GPL?
James Troup writes...
> Adrian Bunk wrote on debian-devel:
>
> > there are currently many "binary-only" NMUs for HPPA that change the
> > source of the package. E.g.
>
> Grr, guys please don't do this. That's not what binary-only NMUs are
> for. If you need to make changes to the source, then do a sourceful
> NMU. As porters you have a lot more leeway WRT permission to do
> sourceful NMUs (i.e. you don't necessarily have to ask permission,
> wait silly amounts of time etc.).
I suspect the majority of the cases where this is occurring is when
config.{sub,guess} needs updating for hppa. When we encounter those we file
a bug, update those files to the newest upstream version and do a binary-hppa
upload. We figured that there was no reason to force the other archs to
recompile and everyone to download the new package, etc. At some point we'll
need to go back and review all those bugs to make sure they have been dealt
with.
What do you think? Would a source-NMU be better?
The only other source-changes binary-hppa NMU that I've done was for apt. We
needed the latest CVS version and didn't want to subject all the other archs
to the new bits. Hopefully there will be a new version soon and the current
hppa one can go away.
> If needs be, I'll add yet more code to katie to check for and try to
> stop ``bin-only'' NMUs which aren't simple recompiles, but I'd really
> rather not.
We'll knock it off, no need to add code(although I wouldn't object to such
code being added).
Thanks,
--
Matt Taggart Linux Development Lab
taggart@fc.hp.com HP Linux Systems Operation
Reply to: