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

"Non-Free GFDL" and correct packaging practices

A fictional source package 'gnuhell' is the package of GNU Hell from
ftp.gnu.org.  Like every other FSF-originated software, it follows their
rules which means a fairly standard build structure and GFDL info

The package as it currently stands has needed no modification and it
constists of the pristine upstream source tar file renamed to
gnuhell-1.5_orig.tar.gz, with the debian/ directory added by the
.diff.gz and nothing else changed.

The package has already undergone Xuification which means two binary
packages are created; 'gnuhell' which contains the binary and support
files (all GPL) and 'gnuhell-doc' which contains the info documentation

Assuming the maintainer believes the GFDL is sufficiently non-free to
warrant taking pre-emptive action and removing it, what's the right
thing to do?

Can he simply change the section of gnuhell-doc (with appropriate
overrides changes) to non-free/doc?  This would mean that the GFDL
documentation is still in the pristine original tar file, but
distributed in binary form in the correct package.

Or does he have to remove the GFDL-infected documentation from the tar
file, thereby creating a Debian-native package and remove all trace and
mention of the 'gnuhell-doc' package from it -- and then create a *new*
source package for 'gnuhell-doc' which only contains the info file and
is distributed as non-free.

The first seems "nicer", the second creates a total mess.

Which is "correct"?

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: