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

Re: GPL issues (Re: sources for Knoppix 4.02)

On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 10:34:09PM +0200, Klaus Knopper wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:22:20PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > 
> > On 11 July 2006 at 13:45, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> > | On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 11:05:02AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > | 
> > | > Let's start from first principles. A Debian package has a name
> > | > matching a regexp package_1.2.3-1_arch.deb.  Note the two
> > | > underscores delineating the combined 'upstream-debian' version
> > | > number.  There is only one hyphen, and it separates the upstream
> > | > number from the Debian number.
> > | 
> > | There may be more than one hyphen; the _last_ one is the separator
> > | (Debian policy 5.6.12).
> > 
> > Thanks for catching that. I had it in the back of my mind as I even vaguely
> > recall Ian Jackson discussing this in the mid nineties. I should have looked
> > it up. So the heuristic is
> > 
> > -- parse from the left for the first '_' to get the name
> > -- parse from the right for the first '-' to get the Debian revision
> > -- the remainder the is the upstream version, or whatever modification was
> >    done to it (e.g. adding '.csv.20060711' or some such).
> So, what about this:
> $ dpkg-query -W --showformat='${Package} ${Version} ${Source}\n' e2fsprogs
> e2fsprogs 1.38+1.39-WIP-2006.04.09-1
> What would be the source package? Your best guess?

I may misunderstand your question here. 

In the case of e2fsprogs, the Debian maintainer *is* the upstream
maintainer. In those cases packages may have been 'native' to Debian ie have
no Debian revision number.

Ted seems to have packaged a WIP (work in progress, maybe?) snapshot between
releases 1.38 and 1.39, and taken on April 9.  As I already stated earlier
in the thread, the point is also moot as the current file in unstable and
testing is e2fsprogs_1.39-1.

The pool structure, I believe, keeps the sources for the current stable,
testing and unstable versions. So currently there is none corresponding to
your snapshot. But you could simply fetch the current package from testing or
unstable, and get its sources.  That would satisfy the GPL for all, no?

Now, as to the peculiar reply from dpkg-query, it would appear that
${Source} returns a "source package name" if and only if that name is
different from the binary package name -- see here for a small package where
source==binary, and another example where that is not the case:

edd@basebud:~> dpkg-query -W --showformat='${Package} -- ${Version} -- ${Source}\n' wajig
wajig -- 2.0.34 --
edd@basebud:~> dpkg-query -W --showformat='${Package} -- ${Version} -- ${Source}\n' r-base-core
r-base-core -- 2.3.1-1 -- r-base

So maybe dpkg-query wasn't meant to be used the way you are trying to use it?

Hth,  Dirk

Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something. 
                                                  -- Thomas A. Edison

Reply to: