Re: Fwd: Re: libjpeg for debian, autoconf
Sorry to bother you all with this trivial matter.
--- Bill Allombert <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 09:58:19AM -0800, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> > Dear Debian legal, Gnu License Violation,
> > There seems to be a problem with the sources of
> > the libjpeg package. It does not have the full source code,
> > it is missing the autoconf and automake sources.
> Some correction are neccessary here:
> 1) I suppose you mean configure.in and Makefile.am file. Please do
> confuse things.
> 2) This package does not use automake at all. the Makefile is ad-hoc.
> > Do you allow debian and gnu packages to be distributed without the
> > "full" source code including the autoconf tools.
> Again there is several important correction:
> 1) It is by no way a GNU package, it is licensed under the following
> In conclusion, there is no license violation here.
This conclusion I have also come to.
> > These sources are needed to port the package to a new platform.
> Could you give more technical background ? This interests me. I am
> sure it
> will be easier to port libjpeg to a new platform without meddling
> with the
> configure script.
The package is done for now, compiled with the mingw32 cross compiler
for windows under debian GNU/Linux.
you can find my packages here :
and a description here
> I have done it for The Hurd. Even if you had the
> configure.in script, it will be in autoconf-2.12 format.
I guess that ic
> > > A violation of the GPL could have it removed from the debian
> > > distribution and that would endanger the GTK+ toolkit and the
> What GPL violation ? libjpeg is not released under the GPL.
But as part of a larger GPL package, we should resolve this issue
anyway, it cannot be hard
> Please avoid pestering upstream authors and GNU folks with Debian
Ok, well I figured maybe they had the configure file lying around, it
would not be hard to include it.
James Michael DuPont
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now